11-3 
 
 
 
 
 
 LIBEAEY 
 
 
 
 OF THE 
 
 
 
 Theological Seminnry, 
 
 1 
 
 
 PRINCETON, N. J. 
 
 
 
 Case, \Z> C^C Diyjsio: 
 
 SiM^..jLi^fcS.^wLSectionX w i 
 
 
 
 Book, v,.i.;. z No... 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 i 
 
 

 r 
 
& ■* '^;j, ^y : ^ ;> \ ^ 
 
 ^i ; 
 
 s. 
 
 •A 
 
 
 
 * ■ 
 
 >*> *\ V .,\v.* , A 
 
 i * • s 
 
 V « 
 
 v v 
 
 * " V*v -*£ '*■ 
 
 ..> 
 
 * < 
 
k/v~ /dndndf 
 
 THE 
 
 CREDIBIL IT Y 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Gofpel Hiftory : 
 
 O R, T H E 
 
 FACTS 
 
 Occasionally mention'd in the 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT; 
 
 Confirmed by Passages of 
 
 Ancient Authors 
 
 Who were contemporary with our 
 
 Saviour or his Apostles, 
 or lived near their Time. 
 
 With an Appendix concerning the Time of 
 Herod's Death. 
 
 __ i • >. 
 
 V O L. II. 
 
 By Nathaniel Lardner. 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 Printed for ] o h m Chandler at the CrossKeys : ), the 
 Poultry. 1717. 
 
; 
 
THE 
 
 CONTENTS 
 
 BOOK II. 
 
 \HRE E Objections a. 
 gainft Luke, ch.ii. v. i, 
 2. Pag. i. 
 
 Chap. II. Two Ob- 
 jections taken from the jilence of Jofe- 
 phus. 189 
 
 Chap. III. An Objection againft the fif- 
 teenth year of Tiberius compared with 
 the age of Jefus at his Baptifm. 201 
 Chap. IV. Of Annas and Caiaphas. 3 do 
 Chap. V. Of the different names given to 
 Herodias'^ firft husband by the Evange- 
 lifis and Jofephus. 3 1 5 
 
 Chap. VL 
 
The C O N T E N T S. 
 
 Chap. VI. Of Zacharias the fon of Ba- 
 rachias. 334 
 
 Chap. VII. Of Theudas. 352 
 
 Chap. VIII. Of the Egyptian Impojior. 371 
 The Conclufion* 381 
 
 An Appendix concerning the time of He- 
 rod V death. 388 
 
 ERRATA. 
 
 AGE 1 to. 1. 3. from the bottom of the page, for Ghtiri- 
 nius read 6hiirinu<. 12.6. 1 14. for ngo i? r. x^erS. 129. 
 J. 10. after Saint r. Luke. 144. in the margin for Deur. 
 x.Numb. 145. 1* 1. for this cafe, r. this rule in this cafe. 25-5. 
 1. 6.. for Antomnies. r. Antomnes. 285-. 1. 10. for P/£> r. Pj/o. 
 p. 376. 1. 1 5. for w>0«/</ read // wo«W. In the Notes p. 2,6. l.i. 
 for ^!)WTTa,«(j^ r. KVigvTTopivGc. 71. ]>ult. for ^w» r. i%w J5. 
 I.ult. for 141. r. 1242. 
 
 P 
 
THE 
 
 CREDIBILITY 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 GOSPEL HISTORY 
 
 BOOK II. 
 
 Chap. I. 
 
 Three Objections againfi Luke, 
 ch. ii. v. i, z, 
 
 £. I. The firfi Obj. That there is no 
 mention made by any ancient Author 
 of a "Decree in the reign of Auguftus 
 for taxing all the world, Stated and 
 anfwered. §ALThefecondObj. That 
 there could be no taxing made in Judea, 
 during the reign of Herod, by a decree 
 B of 
 
The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 of Auguftus , jlated and anfwered. 
 #. III. The third Obj. That Cy renins 
 was not Governour of Syria till fe- 
 deral ye drs after the birth of Jejus , 
 Stated, together with a general an- 
 fwer. §. IV. "Divers particular Solu- 
 tions of this Obj. §. V. The laft So- 
 lution confirmed and improved. §. VI. 
 'Divers particular difficulties attending 
 the Suppofiiton, that this taxing was 
 made by Cyrcnius, confidered. 
 
 H E Hiftory of the New Tejla- 
 mcnt is attended with many 
 difficulties. Jewifh and He a. 
 then authors concur with the 
 facred Hiftorians in many things. But it is 
 pretended, that there are other particulars in 
 which they are contradicted by authors of 
 very good note. 
 
 Among thefe, the difficulties which 
 may be very properly confidered in the firft 
 place, are thofe which relate to the account 
 St. Luke has given of the Taxing in Judea y 
 which brought Jofeph and the Virgin to 
 Bethlehem a little before the birth of Jefus. 
 A NT) it came to pajje in thofe days, 
 fays St. Luke, that there went out a decree 
 
 from 
 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. g 
 
 from Cefar Auguftus that all the world 
 Jhould be taxed. {And this taxing was 
 jirft made when Cyrcnius was governour of 
 Syria) And all went to be taxed, every one 
 in his own city. And Jofeph alfo went up 
 from Galilee, out of the city of Nazareth, 
 into Judea, unto the city of David, which 
 is called Bethlehem (becaufe he was of the 
 houfe and linage of David) to be taxed with 
 Mary his efpoufed wife, being great with 
 
 cbiU '- LukeilA, 
 
 Against this account feveral objecti- — 5- 
 ons have been railed (a). They may be all 
 reduced to thefe three. 
 
 I. I t is obje&ed, That there isrio men- 
 tion made, in any ancient Roman or Greek 
 Hiftorian, of any general taxing of people 
 all over the world, or the whole Roman 
 Empire, in the time of Auguftus, nor of 
 any Decree of the Emperour for that pur- 
 pofe : Whereas, if there had been then any 
 fuch thing, it is highly improbable, that it 
 fhould have been omitted by them. 
 
 II. S t. Matthew (ays, that Jefus was born Matth - a 
 in the days of Herod the king. Jaded there- 
 
 («) Vid. Spanhcm. Dubia EvangelicaPart-ii. Dub. iv. v.&c. 
 Huet. Demonft. Evangel. Prop, ix, cap. x. 2c Commenta- 
 tore3. 
 
 B i foit 
 
The Credibility of the Book II 
 
 fore was not at that time a Roman province, 
 and there could not be any taxing made there 
 by a Decree of Auguftus. 
 
 III. CTRE N I US was not Govcrnour 
 of Syria till nine or ten, perhaps twelve 
 years after the birth of Jefus. St. Luke 
 therefore was mifhken, in faying, that this 
 Taxing was made in his time. This objecti- 
 on will be dated more fully hereafter. 
 
 §. I. By way of anfwer to the firft ob- 
 jection, 
 
 i. I allow that there is not any mention 
 made by ancient writers of any general tax- 
 ing all over the world, or of all the fubj efts 
 of the Roman Empire, in the reign of Au- 
 gujluf. 
 
 Many learned men having been of a 
 different opinion, 1 am obliged to confider 
 their proofs. 
 
 T I L L E M O N T (a) puts the 
 queftion (for he does not aflert it) whether 
 'Plinie has not referred to fuch a thing. But 
 it is plain from T/inie's words, that he 
 ipeaks of a partition of Italie pnly into feve- 
 rai diftri&s {b ). There 
 
 (a) Tillemont Memoires Ecclef. Tom. i. Not. ii. Sur Jefus 
 Cbr'tfl. (6) Nunc ambitum ejus, urbefque enumerabi- 
 
 mus. Qua in re praefari necefTarium eft, au&orem nos Divum 
 
 Auguftum 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. 
 
 There is a palTage alfo of TDio, which 
 has been referred to upon this occafion : 
 But it has evidently no relation to the mat- 
 ter before us. The Romans had a Tax cal- 
 led the twentieth. This tax was grievous to 
 many people. Jlugujlus therefore defired 
 the Senate to confider of fome other. ' But 
 ' the Senate not rinding any proper expedient, 
 « he intimated that he would raife mony upon 
 c lands and houfes, without telling 'cm what, 
 ' or in what manner,it fhould be ; and hercup- 
 c on fent officers abroad, fome one way and 
 ' fome another, to make a furvey of the c- 
 1 ftates both of particular perfons and cities. 
 c But upon this the Senate complied imme- 
 c diately,and the old tax of the twentieth was 
 ' confirmed, left a worfe fhould come in its 
 c room. This was all ^Aiiguftus aimed at, 
 * and the Survey was laid afide (a)\ JJe- 
 ftdes, this affair happened, A.U. 766. A.D. 
 13. long after the taxing which St. Luke 
 fpeaks of. 
 
 Auguftum fecuturos, defcriptionemque ab eo fa&am Italiae 
 totius in rcglones xi. Vim. Jib, iii.cap. v. 
 
 {a) Kcti Ktceaftfipct fjuy^it iixav, p,^' etrov, fjuvi&' tome uvrl 
 cua-turiv, i7rifju-^iv oc^Hi ay&v) roc n T ihurm >£ roc t 3 noltut 
 
 JW^in, t$ r»v iiKo^v rttett ktiiXMTcu' i ^ *ytWc' DlO. lib* 
 56. p. ;88. E. 
 
 B 3 The 
 
The Credibility of the BookIL 
 
 The paffage, which Baronius (a) has 
 quoted from Aethicus, he does himfelf al- 
 low to relate only to a geometrical defcrip- 
 tion of the Empire, begun by order of Ju- 
 lius Cefar, and finifhed in thirty two years, 
 and therefore over long before the taxing 
 mentioned by St. Luke. 
 
 I am afraid to mention his argument from 
 Tlinie, left it fhould be thought, that I in- 
 tend to divert the reader, when we ought 
 to be ferious. Tlinie fays : c And as for 
 ' Augaftus himlelf, whom all mankind 
 \ rank in this clafle [ of fortunate per- 
 € forts'] if the whole courfe of his life be 
 € carefully confidered, there will be obferved 
 c in it many instances of the ficklenefle and 
 * inconfhnce of human affairs (Jf)? But 
 Baronius fuppofes, that Tlinie fays, that in 
 every cenfus mention is made of Auguftus, 
 and that there was fo particularly in that 
 made by Vefpafian and Titus, becaufe he 
 -Br ft made (c) a furvey of the whole Ro- 
 man 
 
 W Apparat. N. 97. (b) In Divo quoque Auguflo, 
 
 <quem univerfa mortalitas in hac censura nuncupat, fi diligen- 
 ter aeftimentur cun&a, magna fbrtis humanae reperiantur volu- 
 mina Lib. 7. cap. 4$. (c) Ideraque dum haec alibi 
 
 ait: [lib. 7. cap. 45.3 In Divo quoque Augufio, quern univerfa 
 mortalitas in hnc cenfura nuncufat, nempe earn, quam Vefpa- 
 ilanas & Titus recens egerunt, de qua idem mferius [ibid. cap. 
 
 49-3 
 
Chap J. Gospel History. 
 
 man 'Empire : Thus making Tlinie to refer, 
 in the patTage he quotes from him, not to 
 what went before, but to a paltige which 
 follows four chapters lower. 
 
 Some have alleged, as a proof of this 
 general taxing, fome words of Suidas, who 
 in his Lexicon (a) fays, c That Aitgitftus 
 c fent out twenty men of great probity into 
 * all parts of his Empire, by whom he made 
 1 an aiTeiTement of perfons and cftates, order- 
 1 ing a certain quota to be paid into the 
 1 trcafury. This was the firft Cenfus, they 
 c who were before him having at pleafure ex- 
 1 acled tribute of thofe who had any thing . 
 1 fo that it was a public crime to be rich'. 
 
 But it is very difficult to take this upon 
 Suidass authority alone, fince he fays not in 
 what part of AaguflvSs reign it was done, 
 quotes no author for it, and it is not to be 
 
 49.] Meminir, fignificare videtur, in quolibet repetito in orbe 
 Romano luftris lingulis cenfu, mentionem Augufti fieri ; quod 
 primus omnium univerium orbem Romanum fubjs&um im- 
 pcrio cenfuiflet. At de ceniibus fatis. Baron, ubi fupra. 
 
 (a) In Voc. 'Aw/petty' 'Aw/petty i u7rxfii6fAr,(rt<;' 'O ^ 
 KaTrctp ' Avyxq-®-', [Aovctp%v<rctc, uxotrtv otvtl)>ct$ rkc, ct^i'mc rev 
 fiiov x^ rev r^eTev i^iXs^eifJCttv^'y Ijri 7ra<rctv rw yvy t vxvxew, 
 i^iTif/i^i* e>\i uv "itw/^ettyaLc, izoit)<roLTo T 2 rs oivdpax&v £ icrim, 
 uvTctgKT] rivet Trgorct^cts ra or,u>o<rio) [//aTgav dv. r&ruv si<r(P'-fieJ^' 
 'Aur/t y Icrsypctty Trparn iytviro, tt xgo avrx mc. xtxrqyAvxq 
 Tt jW/tf utyxipyi/jiwv , eoq iivett roTq iuxoeoiq ^tyx/ocnov fyxXqu/cc rov 
 fhvrov, 
 
 B 4 found 
 
p The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 found in any ancient writer now extant. Tho', 
 poffibly, he refers to the ftory juft now told 
 from *Dio- y who allures us, that project, he 
 mentions , was never executed. Befides, 
 Suidas fays, this was the jirft Cenfus-, which 
 is a very great miftake. There had been be- 
 fore Augufius many alTeflements of Roman 
 citizens, and likewife of divers provinces of 
 the Roman Empire. 
 
 In another place Suidas fays, * Augujlus 
 < had a defirc to know the number of all the 
 ? inhabitants of the Roman Empire (a). 
 And he mentions the number, which, he 
 fays, \yas found upon the enquiry. But 
 Suidas muft have been miftaken. Arch- 
 bifhop Ufshefs remark upon this paflage is 
 worth placing here. c In their Confuliliip 
 
 * {Cains Marcius Cenforinus* and C. AJinius 
 1 Gal/US'] there was a fecond mufter made 
 
 * at i?0/?^,inwhich were numbered 4233000 
 « Roman Citizens, as is gathered out of the 
 f fragments of the Ancyran marble. In 
 
 * Suidas ', in 'K\iywro$ the number is far lelTe 
 « of thofe that were muttered, 41 01 01 7. 
 
 * which yet he very ridiculoufly obtrudeth 
 
 (a) V. 'Auyx<r<&" 'Avy%s-<&' Kx~<roig frefytv ocvra ^mTa,^ r*s 
 
Chap.I. Gospel History. 9 
 
 i upon us not for the mufter of the city only 
 ' but of the world (a)'. 
 
 The late learned Editor (b) of Suidas 
 does alfo highly approve of this centure paf- 
 fed upon his Author by our moft learned 
 and excellent Arch-bifhop. It is obfervable 
 that they both ufe here the word City [urbis 
 cenfu], I hope however they mean not the 
 City of Rome only and the country round 
 about it, but the Roman Citizens all over 
 the Roman Empire, or at left all Italie: 
 for otherwife, with fubmiffion, I fhould 
 think them, in this particular, almoft as un- 
 reafonable as Suidas. It is incredible, that 
 there mould have been at Rome and in the 
 country round about it, befide ftrangers and 
 flaves, which were very numerous, fo many 
 Roman Citizens as are mentioned on the 
 Ancyran Marble; even though all, who 
 were entered in aCenfus, be fct down there ; 
 
 (a) Annals: year of the world, 3996. p. 786. lEngl. EJir. 
 Lond. 1658. In the Latin the laft words are: Qui tamen nort 
 pro Urbis tantum fed pro Orbis etiam Romani cenfu ridicule 
 nobis ibi obtruditur. 
 
 (b) De hoc loco vide omniso Caiaubonum contra Baron, 
 Exerc. 1. Num. 93. EtUiTer. — qui refle obfervarunt, Suidam 
 hie cenfum urbis pro cenfu orbis Romani lectori obtruderc- 
 cum ridiculum fit credere, non plures fuifie totius imperii Ro- 
 mani incolas, quam quot Suidas hie exprimit. 
 
 which 
 
io The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 which however is denied by fome. I fup- 
 pofe then, that by the Mufter of the City, 
 thefe learned men mean the mufter or cen- 
 fus of Roman Citizens in any part of the 
 Roman Empire ; as oppofed to all the peo- 
 ple in general living in the fame Empire. And 
 in this fenfe only (a) I adopt their cenfure of 
 Suidas : and cannot but think it very juft. 
 The number of the inhabitants of the Ro- 
 man Empire muft needs have exceeded the 
 numbers mentioned by Suidas, or on the 
 marble y though it fliould be fuppofed, that 
 none are included in thefe numbers but 
 thofe who were arrived at military age. 
 This might be (ufficient to (hew, that the 
 number on the Ancyran marble is not the 
 number of all the people of the Roman Em- 
 pire: but other reafons may appear prefent- 
 
 I mud in the next place take the liberty 
 of confidering what Dr. Frideaux has laid 
 upon this fubjeft, who, with Huet (£), and 
 others, thinks, that this defcription or furvey 
 in Judea belonged to one of the furveys 
 made by Augufius ; and that in particular, 
 
 (a) I think this evidently Kufter'sfenfe* His Or bis R&mani is 
 explained afterwards by tonus imperii Romani Incolas. There 
 fore his urbis cenfm imports Roman Citizens living any where. 
 
 {b) Demon. Evang. ubi fupra §. iii. 
 
 it 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. h 
 it was a part of his fecond Cenfus. l The 
 c firft was in the year when he himfelf was 
 
 * the fixth time, and AL Agrippa the fecond 
 ' time Confuls, that is, in the year before the 
 
 * Chriftian Aera 28, The fecond rime in the 
 
 < Confulfhip of C. Marcms Cenforinus and 
 ' C. Afinius Gallus, that is, in the year be- 
 c fore the Chriftian Aera 8. And the laft: 
 
 * time in the Confulfhip of Sextus Pom- 
 4 perns Nepos, that is, in the year or' the 
 
 < Chriftian Aera 14. In the firft and laft 
 
 * time he executed this with the afliftance of 
 
 * a Collegue. But the fecond time he did it 
 
 * by himfelf alone, and this is the defcription 
 y which St. Luke refers to. The Decree con- 
 
 * cerning it ilTued out the year I have menti- 
 ? oned, that is, in the 8th year before rhe 
 c Chriftian Aera, which was three years be- 
 
 ' fore that in which Chrift was born. 
 
 1 That we allow three years for the execu- 
 ' tion of this decree can give no juftreafon 
 
 < for exception The account taken by 
 
 c the decree of Auguftus at the time of our 
 c Saviour's birth extended to all manner of 
 
 < perfons, and alfo to their pofleffions^ftates, 
 c qualities, and other circumftances. And 
 « when a defcription and furvey like this was 
 l ordered by William the Conqueror, to be 
 
 1 taken 
 
 
I x The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 1 taken for England only, I mean that of 
 c the Domefday Book, it was fix years in 
 < making; and the Roman province of Syria 
 1 was much more than twice as big as all 
 1 England {a).' 
 
 To all this I fhall only fay (i.) that the 
 furveys made by Auguftas were of Roman 
 Citizens only. So he fayshimfelf in thein- 
 fcription on the Ancyran marble [b). And 
 the Roman Hiftorians fay the fame thing (f). 
 But the Cenfus or Defcription made in 
 Judea, according to St. Luke's account, was 
 of all the inhabitants of that country, which 
 certainly were not, all of them, Roman 
 Citizens. 
 
 (a) Prideaux Conn. Part. ii. pag. 6$o. 651. 8vo. Edit. 1718, 
 
 (b) Et. In Confulatu. Sexto. Cenfam. Poiuu. Gol'eg3, 
 M. Agrippa. Egi — Quo. Luftro. Civium. RoMANCRUM.Cenlita 
 funt. Capita, Quadragiens. Ceptum. Millia. Et. Sexaginta.Tria. 
 
 Cum Nuper. Luftrum. Solus. F.ci. Legi. Cenforum. 
 
 simio. Cof. Quo. Luftro, Cenfa. funt. C ivium, romangrum. 
 
 Quadrjgens. Centum. Millia. Et. Ducenta. Triginta. Tria. 
 
 In confulatu. F 1. ——Cum. nuperrime- Luftrum. Cum. 
 
 Lega. Tiberio, Sext. Pompeio. Et. Sext. Apuleio. Cof. Quo. 
 Luftro. rom. Capitum. Quadragens. Centum. Mil.— iciijta. 
 Et. Septem. Mil. Legi. 
 
 (c) Recepit& morum legumque regimen aeque perpetuum* 
 quo jure, quamquam fine cenfurae honore, cenfum tam#n 
 Populi ter egic Suet* in Aug. cap. 27. 
 
 (2.) This 
 
Chap.I. Gospel History. 13 
 
 (2.) The years which the Do&or men- 
 tions were not the years, in which the de- 
 crees were iflued out,but in which the furveys 
 were finifhed. This appears to me the 
 mod natural meaning of the words of the 
 Infcription. 
 
 Perhaps it will be objefted, that the 
 confulfhips here fet down do not denote the 
 years, in which acenfus was finifhed, but in 
 which it was refolved upon and entered in 
 the Fafti, or Public A&s $ and that the fenfe 
 of the Infcription may be thus : In fuch 5 and 
 fuch a Confulfhip I made a cenfus, by which 
 cenfus, when finifhed, the number of Citi- 
 zens was found to be fo and fo. It may be 
 likewife faid, that the phrafe Luftrum feci 
 does not neceffarily import the making the 
 Luftrum, which was done when the Cenfus 
 was over, but that Luftrum is here Synony- 
 mous with Cenius. And jt may be urged, 
 that when Luftrum denotes the folemn fa- 
 crifice at the conclufion of the cenfus, the 
 verb condo is ufed, and not facto, which we 
 have here. 
 
 T o this I anfwer, that by the account here 
 given of the third cenius we are obliged to 
 fuppofe, that the Confulfhips here named 
 denote the times, when each Cenfus was 
 
 finifhed 
 
i^ The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 finifhed. Sextus Yompeius and Sextus Apu- 
 leius, in whofe Confulfliip the laft cenfus 
 is placed, were Confuls A. U. 767, A. D. 14. 
 And Auguftus died the 1 9th of Auguft that 
 very fame year. If the cenfus had been 
 only begun, and not finifhed, he could not 
 have fet down on the Table, as he has done, 
 the number of Citizens which was found in 
 that Cenfus. Moreover, it is plain from (a) 
 Suetonius, that Tiberius was nominated for 
 Coliegue of Auguftus in this Cenfus, the 
 year before, if not fooner. It is likely the 
 Cenfus might be then entered in the public 
 Afts. But however that be, it is plain, that 
 the date on the Ancyran Marble fignifies the 
 compleating of the Cenfus. And I think, 
 that the paflage I have juft quoted from Sue- 
 tonius may remove the fcruple relating to 
 the phrafe 5 fince he has ufed the verb condo, 
 by which we are fully affured, that the cen- 
 fus was finifhed, and the folemn facrifice 
 performed at the conclufion of it, in the 
 year fet down on the Ancyran Marble. 
 
 (a) A Germania in urbem pod biennium regreffus, trium- 
 phum, quem diftulerat, egit. — Dedicavit Sc concordiae aedem»— 
 Ac non multo poft lege per CofT. lata, ut provincias cum Au- 
 gufto communiter adminiftraret, fimulque cenfum ageret, con- 
 dito luftro io Illyricum profedtus eft. w. Tiber, cap. 20, 11. 
 
 Farther 
 
Chap.I. Gospel History. 17 
 
 Farther, lyiuguftus in the Ancyran 
 marble places his firft cenfus in his own 
 fixth Confulfhip* K^Agrifpa being his collegue. 
 And *Dio fays exprefly that ^Augufius made, 
 or finijhed (a) the cenfus in that year. This 
 being the cafe as to the firft and third cenfus 
 of ^Auguftns, we may conclude the fame 
 thing alfo with reference to the fecond, and 
 that it was finifhed the eighth year before 
 the Chriftian Aera : confequently, it isimpof- 
 fible, that St. Luke's defcription fliould have 
 been a part of it. 
 
 After Auguflus's death there were 
 three books found among his papers : and 
 one of thefe is alleged as a proof that 
 there had been made fome general furvey of 
 the Roman Empire y and that about this time. 
 Do&or Trideaux's words are thefe : c Of the 
 c book, which Auguftus made out of the 
 « lurveys and defcriptions which were at 
 * this time returned to him out of every Pro- 
 c vince and depending Kingdome of the Ro- 
 [ man Empire, Tacitus <J?) 9 Suetonius (c), 
 
 and 
 
 (a) Kef* Tctc, uTrtygctQcK, s|£r£As<r£* 1. 5 3 • p. 496. c. 
 
 (b) Cum proferr ; libeilum recitarique juflit. Opes publicae 
 continebantur. Quantum avium, fociorumque in avmis : 
 quot dafles, regna, provincial tributa aut vedtigalia, & necef- 
 iitates 8c largitiones, quae cun&a fua manu perfenpferat Au- 
 guftus. Tacit. Ann. lib. i. cap. xi. 
 
 if) De tribus voluminibus, uno, mandata de fuaere fuo 
 
 com- 
 
1 6 The Credibility of the Book II 
 
 1 and 'Dion Cajfius (a), make mention, and 
 € reprefcnt it to be very near of the fame 
 ' nature with our Domefday Book above- 
 * mentioned'. 
 
 B u t I do not fee how Auguflus** hav- 
 ing had by him a little book (libellum> Bre- 
 viarium imperii) written with his own 
 hand, containing a fmall abridgement of 
 the public taxes, impofts, and revenues, 
 can be any proof that this ftate of the em- 
 pire was formed upon a furvey made at this 
 time, or indeed upon any general furvey 
 made at any other time> by virtue of any one 
 fingle decree (that is St. Lukes phrafe) for 
 the whole empire. This ftate which Au~ 
 guflus had by him of the public firength 
 and riches might have been formed upon 
 furveys made at different times. Nay, he 
 might have in this Book the ftate of depen- 
 dent Kingdomes, in fome of which a Cen-* 
 fiis had never been made. And it is likely 
 
 complexus eft : altero, indicem rerum a fe ge$arum, quern vel. 
 let incidi in aeneis tabulis, quae ante Maufoleum ftatuerentur : 
 tertio, breviarium totius imperii, quantum miiitum ubique fub 
 fignis effet, quantum pecuniae in aerario & fifcis, & ve&iga- 
 lium refiduis. Suet, in Aug. cap. 101. 
 
 (*) To TpiTcv rot, rt T rgxTituTaii ^ tx T Xfotr'oh)v, rwrt 
 uvxXafAccrav T ^vyjaa-'iM, to, T£ tA^<^ T Cv To7<i Qwxvgofc 
 Xfnppcrw Difi. lib. j-6. p. ^91. B. 
 
 it 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. if 
 
 it may appear in the progreffe of this argu- 
 ment, that there were^ feveral countries, 
 branches of the Roman Empire, which had 
 never been obliged to fubmit to a Cenfus. 
 
 Beside that there is not found in any 
 ancient Roman hiftorian any account of a 
 general Cenfus of all the countries and peo- 
 ple of the Roman Empire ; there are consi- 
 derations taken from the nature of the thing, 
 which render it very improbable, that a ge- 
 neral Cenfus fhould ever have been appoint- 
 ed at one time. The Roman Afieilments 
 were always difagreeable things in the pro- 
 vinces, and often caufed difturbances. An 
 unaverfal Cenfus at the fame time feems to 
 have been impracticable. And there does 
 not appear in any Roman hiftorian fo much 
 as a hint, that fuchathing was ever thought 
 of by any of their Emperours. 
 
 What is juft now faid of the difficul- 
 ty of making a general furvey at one and 
 the fame time, affe&s chiefly the Do&or's 
 Sentiment, who feems to think that the tax- 
 ing St. Luke ipeaks of was a proper Roman 
 Cenfus. They who fuppofe that it was only 
 a numbring of the people, are not particu- 
 larly concerned with it. 
 
 C 
 
1 8 The Credibility of the BookIL 
 
 2. 1 am of opinion,thatSt.Z/f^ fpeaks on- 
 ly of a taxing in Judea : and that the firft 
 verfe of his fccond chapter ought to bfe ren- 
 dered after this manner : And it came to 
 pafs in thofe days, that there went forth a 
 decree from Cefar Auguftus that all the 
 land (hould be taxed. So Monfieur Len- 
 fant has tranflated it (a). Bjnaeus like- 
 wife is of the fame Sentiment, and has 
 iiipported it, in my judgment, very well (£). 
 
 I have (hewn in another (c) place that 
 the word we have here does fometimes de- 
 note a particular country only, and that 
 St. Luke has ufed it for the land of Judea. 
 And he muft be fo underftood in this place. 
 The Decree relates to the land of Judea on- 
 ly, becaufe (d) the account that follows is 
 
 of 
 
 (a) En ce temps la, il fut publie un Edit de la part de 
 Cefar x\ugufte, pour faire un denombrement de tout !e pais. 
 Nouveati. Tefi. voyez les notes. (b) AntoniusBvnaeuy 
 
 de natali J. Chrifti. lib. i. cap. iii. §♦ v. vi. 
 
 (c) See V. i. p. 511. n. a. Some time after this whole 
 
 chapter was in a manner quite finifhed, I met with Kettchenii 
 Annotata in A r . T. He has upon this text alleged feme other 
 examples of this ufe of o^ayAvn' I re'y upon thofe I have 
 produced in the place refeired to, and (hall not trouble the rea- 
 der with more. 
 
 (d) What is above was writ feveral months before I had 
 feen Keuchenius. But my Sentiments are fo much confirmed 
 by what he has faid upon the fame fubje£r, that I am per- 
 f waded the leader will allow me to take the advantage of 
 
 fub- 
 
Chap. I Gospel History. 19 
 
 of that country only. And inuft not every 
 one perceive fome dcficicnce if outv^m be 
 here rendered the whole world or the Ro- 
 man Empire. Let us fee what St. Luke 
 fays, omitting at prefent the parcntheils% 
 And it came topajfe in thofe days that there 
 went out a decree pom Cefar Auguftus that 
 all the world jhoidd be taxed. And all 
 went to be taxed^ every one in his own city- 
 And Jofcph alfo went tip pom Galilee out of 
 the city of Nazareth. If the account of the 
 Decree had been worded by St. Luke fo ge- 
 nerally as to comprehend the w 7 hole world, 
 would be not have taken fome notice of the 
 land of judea before he came to relate par- 
 ticularly what was done in it ? 
 
 I f it be enquired : If the land of Judea 
 only be meant, what does the term all figni- 
 fie * I anfwer, it was very neceffary to be 
 added. At the time when St. Luke wrote, 
 and indeed from the death of Herod 7 which 
 happened foon after the nativity of Jefus, 
 
 fubjoining here from him what follows: Praeterea, an vtx\ 
 fpeciem habet, Auguftum uno eodemque tempore defcriptio- 
 nem per totum orbem Romanum inftituere voluille ? eccedit 
 quod omnes v. 3. ad civitatcm patriam prob&i leguntur, ut 
 defcriberentur, nimirum iliud xmtic, rcipicit ad xxo-uv -r\ v 
 iixxfjijivw, cujus defcriptio injun&a faifle verf. 1. legitur, be 
 iftius mandati authoritate omnes impulli, Sc ad propriam civi- 
 tatem prote&i effe memoramur. 
 
 C 2 the 
 
io The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 the land of Judea or of Ifrael had differed a 
 difmembring. Archelaus had to his {hare 
 Judea properly fo called, together with Sa- 
 maria and Idumea. And the province of 
 judea, which was afterwards governed by 
 Roman Procurators, was pretty much of 
 the fame extent. But Galilee, Iturea^ and 
 other parts of the land of Ifrael, had been 
 given to other dependents of Herod the 
 Great. 
 
 St. Luke's words therefore are extremely 
 proper arid expreflive, That all the land 
 (hould be taxed ; to (hew, that this decree 
 of Augaftus comprehended Galilee, the 
 country in which Jofeph lived. That this 
 was the intention in adding this term of uni- 
 verfality, is evident from St. Lukes fpecifying 
 immediately afterward the name of the City, 
 from which Jofeph came to Bethlehem $ 
 which City was not in the country that 
 originally belonged to the tribe of Judah^ 
 was not fituated in the bounds of the pro- 
 vince of Judea at the time in which Saint 
 Luke is fuppofed to write, but was of the 
 kingdome of Judea in the reign of Herod. 
 
 1 1 feems needleffe to obferve that it was 
 very common to add the term all or whole 
 to Judea or Land, when perfons intended 
 
 the 
 
 ; 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History, 21 
 the Land of the Ifraelttes. There are divers 
 inftances in the Old and New Tejlament* 
 And Jofepkus, fpeaking of Agrippa the 
 Elder, who had been pofleffed of all the 
 territories iubjeft to his grandfather Herod 
 the Great, fays : ' He had now reigned 
 5 three years over, the whole land of 
 * Judea (a) 9 . 
 
 Though lam very well fotisSed from 
 the contexr, that St. Luke comprehends 
 nothing in Augufluss decree befide the land 
 of Judea ; yet it is no fmall confirmation 
 of this interpretation, that the molt early 
 chrhlian. writers feem to have underftood 
 St. Luke in the fame manner. For when 
 they fpeak of this circumftance of our Savi- 
 our's nativity, they never fay any thing of a 
 general Ccnfus all over the world, or the 
 Roman Empire. 
 
 J if ST IN MARTI R inhisfirfla- 
 pology informs theEmperour and the Senate, 
 of the time and place of Chrift's nativity. 
 c Bethlehem? fays he, in which Jefus Cfrrift 
 1 was born, is a village in the country of 
 1 the Jews % at the dift.ance of five and thir- 
 i ty ftadia from Jerufalem. You may af- 
 
 mto- jofeph. pag. 871. v.^4. 
 
 C 3. * Aire 
 
%z The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 c fare your felves of this from the Cenfus 
 1 made in the time of Cyrenius your firft 
 c procurator in Judea (a)\ He mentions 
 this Cenfus alfo in feveral other places^ 
 and always in the fame manner (b). I do 
 not recoiled above one paffage of Ircnaeus, 
 in which there is any notice taken of this 
 Cenfus (f), and that is not very material© 
 S t. Clement of *^4lexandria fays : ' Our 
 
 * Lord was born in the eight and tvven- 
 
 * tieth year,when they firft ordered a cenfus to 
 
 * be made in the time of slugvftus (d)\ 
 
 O R I G E N confounds this cenfus with 
 that afterward made in J tide a by (e) Cyre- 
 wiiis. But fays nothing of its being univcrfal. 
 
 TftXKOVTOi TTiVTS '\tg6<rO>Mt/j6>V, C4 y sy.$ri$D i ]r t crx<; XfJTOS, &>5 id) 
 
 f/jufoiv d^'jvxvh t-y. ruv hcrz'/patpa'v t yzvcfwav Im Kvpr,vlis rx 
 b/jjiTipx cv 'lufrouct TreaTX yzvoiAiva ixn-farif Jufb. Mart. ApoL 
 I p. 75. E. {b) Hgo irZv 6K&T0V ttsvt^kovta 
 
 */tyw"m^ rev Xfifsv siyttv yf/*u$ sVt KvfljVilS' ibid. T3g. 85. B° 
 
 AzTf)-/f!X(pyj^ «(T'/)S C* TlJ 'IXOXiGt, TGTZ 7?$Ct)Tr,C 17TI KffJJI't'a' K. T.A. 
 
 Dial. i:.p. .103. D. (c) Sed proxima aetatis dicebanf, 
 
 \Judaei Job. viii. ^6.57.] five vere fcientes ex conferiptione 
 ceni'u.% live conjicientes fecundum aetatem, ouarn videbant 
 habere eum iuper quadragmta. Iren. lib. ii. op, xxii. §. 6. 
 (</) 'Eymv>Cy y JfLvti®-' yyj&v rZ cydh'ai ?£ uko'tw trti, ore 
 vearov 'ix.tXiv<roiv eiitfsy '%U(pei$ ymSfc Clem. Strom, lib. 1. pag. 
 339. D. - ^ e ) fc ai pe?' fx-Hvov. [©iKffflt/j ov 70,?$ i^q 
 
 ^MtYgecQw kf*ifee,i<i, ot \onci ysygmi£g h 'Ijjo-*?, 'its^aq Tig r#A<- 
 hcti<&>' riofaxc, savTa a-vviX7ri<5-r t (r°v &xi r» A«S T 'Ix^otW Or'ig. 
 rMt. Celf. lib. i. p, /].}, 
 
 And 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. 23 
 
 And indeed the paflagc amounts almoft to, a 
 pofitive proof, that he thought thecenfus re- 
 lated to Judea only. 
 
 TERTU LLIAN has often made 
 mention of the time of the rife of Christia- 
 nity in his apology addrciTcd to the Roman 
 Magiftratcs (a)> in his books inferibed to 
 the Gentiles {b): of this and the cenfus, in 
 his treatifes, wrote againft the Jews (r) > 
 and againft Heretics (d): but yet there is no 
 notice taken of any Cenfus befide that in 
 Judea. 
 
 If any think that we are to expert no 
 mention of a general Cenfus from the Chri- 
 stian writers, becaufe the Cenfus in Judea 
 was all that was to their purpofe : I fay, that 
 a general Cenfus of all the people and coun- 
 tries of the Roman Empire was very much 
 to their purpofe, the more to illudrate the 
 
 (a) ApoJ.cap. v. vii.xxi. {b) Ad Nat. lib.i. cap, 
 
 vii. (c) Fuit enim de p:tria Bethlehem, £c de demo 
 
 David, ficut apud Romanes in cenfu defcripta eft Maria, ex 
 qua nafcitur Chriflu;. adv. judaecs cxp. 9. (d) Aufer 
 
 hinc, inquir, rooleftos Temper Ciefaris cenfus. De cxr-ieCbrijti 
 cap. 2. Sed & cenfus conftat aclcs fub Auguflo nunc in 
 Juciaea per Senrium Saturninum, apud quos genus ejus inqui- 
 rere potuiffent. adv. Marc: lib, iv. cap. 19. Tam diftincla fuit, 
 aprimordio Judaea Gens per tribus & populos, & familias, fie 
 domos, ut nemo facile ignorari de genere potuifler, vei de re. 
 cemibus Auguftinianis ccniibus, adhuc tunc fbrtafie pendenti- 
 bus e ibid. cap. 36. 
 
 C 4 epocha 
 
24 The Credibility of the Book II 
 
 epochaof our Saviour's nativity. A general 
 Cenfus muft have been better known than 
 one that was particular. Would Jufiin Mar- 
 ty, Origin, and Tertullian have omitted 
 this circumftance, if St. Luke had mentioned 
 it ? Or if they themfelves were aware of it? 
 And yet in their time certainly an univer- 
 fal Cenfus, made in the reign of Aaguftus 7 
 could not have been forgotten. 
 
 Nay, though the univerfality of the 
 Cenfus had been a circumftance of no im- 
 portance at all in their argument 5 yet it is 
 almoft impoffible, but it muft have dropped 
 from them in fome one of thofe many oc- 
 cafions, in which they have mentioned our 
 Saviour's nativity, and the cenfus which ac- 
 companied it. 
 
 I shall proceed but one ftep farther 
 to obferve, that Eufebius has made no men- 
 tion of any more than the cenfus performed 
 in Judea, neither in his Hiftory {a) nor in 
 his Chronicle (£). 
 
 I cannot fay, that this interpretation 
 is fupported by any ancient verfion. But 
 
 (a) Vid. Hift. Ere. lib. i. cap. v.. (b) 'Ev tZ Ay 
 
 Jrlpeo^a Kwpjfw©* vzro rij$ a-v/K^m fixers, etzi? a>> {&&(&• uc, t«v 
 'la^utccv ' cLXoyqaipotc, iTrmnvtATG T viriw x} T cucqTofw. p. 76. 
 md, <k p. 200. 
 
 Bymeus 
 
Chap.I. Gospel History. ry 
 
 Bynaeus (a) obfcrves, that in an ancient 
 glofs there is this explanation of it : That 
 all the world Jhould be taxed] or fur- 
 veyed: not the orb of all the earth, but 
 the orb of Judea and Syria. 
 
 I f then the Ccnfus or Defcription order- 
 ed by the Decree of Augaftus at the time of 
 our Saviour's nativity was of the land of 
 Judea only, the filenceof ancient hiftorians 
 is no obje&ion at all againft St. Luke's ac- 
 count. There muft have been many furveys 
 of provinces of the Roman Empire in the 
 reign of Aaguftus y of which there is no 
 notice taken by any of the Roman or Greek 
 authors now in our hands. 
 
 The only writer, in whom we could ex- 
 peft any mention of it, is Jvfephus. Whether 
 he has lpoke of it or not, will be confidered 
 hereafter. But fuppofing at prefent, that there 
 is no notice at all taken of it by him, this 
 is no objection againft St. Luke. It is not 
 to be expefted, we fhould find in one fingle 
 
 (a) Hoc a nemine interpretum, quod quidera ego fciam, 
 animadverfum effe nili in fpecimine GlofTae Ordinariae, quod 
 Robertus Stephanus cdidit, legimus. Octavius xlii. imperii fui 
 anno, publico thereto edixit, ut un'tverfus crbis Judtteorum &» 
 Syriae defcriberetur, & paulo pojl [ut ce??feretur totus orbh~t 
 fiue defcriberetur : non quidem or bis terrarum, fed orbis Judaeo^ 
 %um & Syriae. Bynaeus. De nacali Jefu Chrifti p. 306. 
 
 Hifto» 
 
%6 The Credibility of the Book II 
 
 Hiftorian all the affairs that were tranfafted ia 
 his country. We have undoubted evidence 
 of this enrollemcnt in the early teftimonies 
 of the chriftian writers. I have already ex- 
 hibited more than enough of them. Jujtin 
 Martyr fpeaks of it in his apology to the 
 Emperour and the Senate before the midle 
 of the fecond century. Tertullian men- 
 tions it in feveral of his pieces. There is. 
 fcarce any one occaftonal fad or circum- 
 itance relating to the hiftqry of Jcfus, which 
 was more frequently and more publicly men- 
 tioned by the chriftian writers. And yet it 
 was never contcftcd, that I know of, in all 
 antiquity, not even by the adverfaries of the 
 Chritlian Religion. Julian fpeaks of it as 
 a thing univcrfally known. I fubjoin his 
 words. c The jefus, fays he, whom yon 
 
 * extol, was one oiCefar's fubje&s. If you 
 € deny it, FJ1 prove it by and by. Though 
 « it may be as well done now. For you fay 
 
 * your fclvcs that he was enrolled with his 
 c father and mother in the time of Cy- 
 c renins {a)' 
 
 ?.<yt<r8w (Pan (j/sv rot kurov ^rtypu-^oc^ fjuirct rS zctr^e, j£ 
 
 y?5 i*v,Tecc Iffi K-^mu' Apud Cmlklib. vi. png. 2,13. ed.Spanh, 
 
 5 I PRE- 
 
Chap, I. GospflHistory. a? 
 
 I presume, I have anfvvcred this ob- 
 jection ; but it is upon the fuppofition that 
 St. Luke ipeaks of a Ccnfus or enrollment 
 in Judea only. I have not taken up this 
 interpretation to avoid a difficulty, but bc- 
 caufc I really think it to be St. Luke's mean- 
 ing. However, if St Luke be fuppofed to 
 (peak of a general Ccnfus of the Roman 
 Empire, I own it, that the filence of anti- 
 quity would be a very great objection. Nor 
 is the difficulty much leffened by fuppofing 
 this enrollment was of Perfons only, and 
 not of lands or goods. The numbring the 
 people was far from being the principal defign 
 of a Ccnfus of Roman Citizens. But yet, 
 oftentimes, when an hiftorian mentions a 
 Cenfus, he gives very little account of any 
 thing relating to it,befide the number of Ci- 
 tizens that was found. If ever the number 
 of all the people of the Roman Empire 
 had been taken in the reign of Augu/lus % 
 it would have been a very great curiofity 5. 
 and hiftorians would have been very fond of 
 gratifying their readers with ir. Though 
 we have but few writers of thofe times, yet 
 it is with me unqueftionablc, that in fome 
 of thole we have, there would have been a 
 particular account of fo remarkable an event, 
 
a 8 The Credibility of the Book If. 
 
 or at left many references to it: whereas 
 there are none at all. 
 
 $. II. S t. Matthew fays, that Jefus was 
 born in the days of Herod. Judea therefore 
 was not at that time a Roman Province: 
 and there could be no taxing made there by 
 virtue of a Decree of Auguflus. 
 
 This objection has been anfwered al- 
 ready. For it is evident from what has 
 been alleged from the Chriftian writers in 
 the reply to tb^ former objection, that there 
 was fome Cenfus, Defcription, or Survey 
 made in Judea at the time of our Saviour's 
 nativity, by a Decree of Auguflus. How- 
 ever,that no fcruples may remain in the minds 
 of any from a. falfe notion of the ftate of 
 Judea under Herod, I (hall particularly con- 
 fider the matter of this fecond objection. 
 
 Before I diftin&ly confider this ob- 
 jection, I would obferve in general 5, that 
 though we have the word Taxing in our 
 verfion, that all the world Jhould be taxed ^ 
 This taxing was firft made$ yet the words 
 ufed by St. Luke do not import a Tax, or 
 laying a Tax or Duty upon a people. In the 
 margin of our Bibles we have the word 
 enrolled. And in moft other tranflati- 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. 29 
 
 ons (a) a word of like fignification is 
 ufed. 
 
 I must alfo premife, that fome have 
 thought, that this Enrolment was to be on- 
 ly of names and perfons 5 and that all An- 
 gujius aimed at by this decree was to know 
 the number of people inhabiting the Ro- 
 man Empire, with their employments and 
 conditions of life. Do&or Whitby para- 
 phrafes thefe words thus : that all the world 
 (hould be taxed : /. e. € fhould have their 
 4 names and conditions of life, fet down 
 ' in court rolls, according to their families'. 
 
 Others have thought, that this Decree 
 obliged to a Regiftry not only of the names 
 of perfons and their conditions of life, but 
 alfo of their goods and poffellions 5 and 
 that in fliort, it was a Roman Cenfus which 
 was now made, in order to the peoples pay 
 ing taxes for the future, according to the 
 value of their eftates. I own it, I am in- 
 clined to this latter opinion 5 and that Saint 
 Luke (peaks only of a Cenfus in Judea, as 
 1 have already declat'd. 
 
 (a) Ut defcriberetur univerfus orbis. Haec defcriptio prima 
 fa&a eft: Verf. vulg. pourfaire un denombrement — ce denom- 
 brcment fe fit, Mons t verf. & Mr. Ls Ckrc, Lenfmt, &c. 
 
 Having 
 
30 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 Having prcmifcd thefe things, that we 
 may find out what kind of enrolment \ or regL 
 firing was now ordered by Auguftus, whether 
 a decree of Auguftus, could be obligatory at 
 this time upon the people of Judea $ and 
 whether, it is likely there was a Roman 
 Cenfus made there at this time, 1 fhall 
 confider thefe following particulars. 
 
 1 . I shall explain the nature of a Ro- 
 man Cenfus. 
 
 2. I shall confider the force of Saint 
 Luke's words. 
 
 3. I sh A l l defcribe in general the date 
 of Judea under Herod. 
 
 4. I shall enquire what grounds there 
 are to believe, that a B.oman Cenfus was made 
 in Judea at this time. 
 
 1. Ishall explain the nature of a Ro- 
 man Cenfus. A Cenfus ("as I take it) con- 
 fided of thefe two parts: jirft, the account, 
 which the people gave in of themfelves and 
 their eftates ; and fecondly, the v&lue fet up- 
 on their eftates by the Cenfors, who took 
 the account from theni. The people did un- 
 doubtedly repreient in fome meafure the va- 
 lue of the things they entered $ but the 
 Cenfors feem to have had the power of de- 
 termining and fetling the value. 
 
 There 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. 31 
 
 There was indeed another thing which 
 belonged to the office of the Cenfors at 
 Rome , fc. the Cenfure or Corre&ion of 
 manners : but, as I fuppofe this belonged 
 only to a Cenfus of Roman Citizens, and 
 that it was no part of a Cenfus of all the 
 inhabitants of a Province, or of a Country 
 fubjeft to a dependent Prince, I take no 
 notice of it here. 
 
 The Roman Cenfus was an inftitution of 
 Servius Tullius, the fixth King of Rome. 
 < Diony[ius of Halicarnaffus gives us this 
 account of it 5 that * He ordered all the 
 1 Citizens of Rome to regifter their eftates 
 
 * according to their value in money, taking 
 c an oath, in a form he prefcribed, to deli- 
 
 * ver a faithful account according to the beft 
 
 * of their knowledge, fpecifying withal the 
 
 * name of their parents, their own age, and 
 
 * the names of their wives and children, ad- 
 1 ding alfo what quarter of the City, or 
 jj what town in the country, they lived in (a)* 
 
 (a) 'EKiXitxriv uttxvtccc, 'Pwfjucuzs uxoyg&QLo-Qal n tci tiujoio% 
 ru$ 4>V«*« TTpes ugyupiev, oyjo<rxvT6is rov vofAiftov ogKov, V) Jtejjfii 
 
 TUXqQv) Xj ^73 7TXVTCS T« fiibrfcit T£Tif/,y t ^ i TTCCTiPVV Ti COV U(Ti 
 
 */pu<povTct.$ y ^ v.t.ixixv w *£»cr* ^jASvt#s, yvvouKocc, re >£ iret72)z$ 
 cvoyjQL^ovTctc, t£ cv run KXToixx<rn iKO.<rok tm zeXiaq tot#, * 
 vuya tyis x®f x $ ng*rt(li»Tets m Dionyf Hal. Ant. Rom. h, iv. 
 c. i/. p. in. ink. Hudf, Edit, 
 
 And 
 
g x The Credibility of the Book II; 
 
 And after much the lame manner do 
 we find a Roman Cenfus defcribed in the 
 (a) Fragments of the Twelve Tables, and 
 in the Roman {b) Orators, (V) Hiftorians^ 
 and (d) Lawyers. From all whom it ap- 
 pears, the people were required to give in an 
 account of their names, their quality, em. 
 ployments, wives, children, fervants, and 
 eftates. 
 
 Beside what the people did> there 
 feems to have been fomething done by the 
 Cenfors more than the bare taking the ac- 
 count the people gave in : That is> they 
 were to determine the value of each parti- 
 cular of their eftates, and the amount (e) of 
 the whole: and from this feems to have been 
 taken the name or title of this office both 
 
 (a) Cenfores populi aevirates, foboles, familias, pecuniafqu e 
 cenfento. Cic.de Leg. Lib. i;i. cap. 3. (b) Jam (ut 
 
 cenforiae tabulae loquuntur) fabriim & proctim, aucko dicere* 
 iun fabrorum 8c procorum. Cic. Orator. Num. 156. (c) Ab 
 hoc (Servio Tullio) populus Romanus relatus in cenfum. 
 Summdque regis folertia ita eft ordinata refpublica, ut omnia 
 patrimonii, dignitatis, aetatis, artium, officiorumque difcrimina 
 in tabulas referrentur, ac (1 maxima civitas minimae domus 
 diligentia contineretur. Florus Lib. i. cap. vi. vid. Li v. L. 1. 
 cap. 41. &. ieq. (d) Vid. Digefta. Tit.de Cenfibus. 
 
 (e) In cenfu habendo poteftas omnis aeftimationis habendae* 
 fummaeque faciundae cenfori permittitur. Cic. in Verr. Lib. ii. 
 £ta, 131. 
 
 itx 
 
Chap.I. Gospel History. 33 
 
 in the (a) Latin, and in the (i) Greek 
 language. For not only was the compafs 
 of ground which any onepoiTeiTed to be con- 
 fidercd, but the nature of it, and the profits 
 it might yield : Nor the number only of 
 flaves or fervants which any one had ; 
 but alfo the work (V) they were employed 
 in, according to which their Service was 
 to be valued. And therefore, every one 
 reckoned himfelf worth fo (d) much as the 
 Cenfors valued his cftate at. 
 
 This power which the Cenfors had of 
 rating or valuing the eftates of all perfons, 
 gave them an opportunity of committing in- 
 juftice , in favouring fome and opprefllng 
 others. For tho' there were (<?) rules by which 
 they ought to regulate their eftimation of 
 
 (n) Cenfio aeftimatio, unds Cenfores. Frftus. de verb. Sign- 
 Cci.fores ab re appeilati funr. Liv. Lib. iv. cap. 8. fin. 
 (b) Ttiurrfe. (c) !n far vis defer endis obfcr- 
 
 vandum eft, ut 8c nationes eorum, & officia, & a-tificia 
 fpecialiter deferantur. 1. 4. §. $*. fi. decenfibtis. (d) Cenforcs 
 di&i, quod rem fram quifuue tanri aeftimare folirus fit, quan- 
 tum iili cenfuerirt. Teftits. V. Cenfores. (e) Forma cen- 
 
 fuah cavetur, at agri fie incenium rcfenntur, afvumquod 
 
 in decern annos proximos fatu n erlt,quotjugerum fit, ilium 
 
 aequitatem debet admittere cenfitor, ut officio ejus congruat, 
 relevari eum> qui in publics t?.bulis delate modo frui certis ex 
 caufis non poflit. 1. 4. pr. cod. 
 
 D every 
 
34 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 every particular, and thefupremeCenforsftf) 
 were wont to iffue cut Precepts to their 
 under officers, injoining Juftice and equity 
 in their pofts; yet if the fupreme Cenfors 
 were men of ill principles, very great enor- 
 mities often went unpuniflied (£). 
 
 That the reader may have a compleat 
 idea of thedefignof thefe enrolments among 
 the Romans^ at left fo far as is neceffary to 
 our purpofe ; I fhall add here the account 
 which TDionyfius has given of the Cenfus 
 made by T. Lartius the Dictator, A. U. 
 258. before Chrift, 496. Being chofen 
 Dictator, < He immediately ordered, that all, 
 
 * according to the excellent inftitution of 
 
 * Servhts Tullius, fhould in their feveral 
 c tribes give in an account of their eftates, 
 c fetting down the names of their wives and 
 
 * children, and their own age and that of 
 
 * their children. All having in a fhort time 
 1 offered themfelves to be afielTed (for the 
 ' penalty of neglect was no lefs than for- 
 
 * feiture of eftateand citizenfhip) there were 
 ' found to be one hundred fifty thoufand and 
 
 (a) Edicis enim, te in decumanum, fi plura fiiftulerit, quam 
 debitum fit, in o&uplum judicium daturum efTe. Cic in Ferr> 
 Lib. iii. Num 2,6. (£) Sic cenfus habitus eft, tc 
 
 Praetore, ut eo cenfu nullius civitatis refpublica poflet admini- 
 ftrari. Nam locupletifllmi cujufq; cenfus extenuaiant, tenuif. 
 fimiauxrant. ibid. L.a.n. 138, 
 
 1 , * feven 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. 35* 
 
 c feven hundred Romans at Man's eftate. 
 * After this, he feparated thofe who were of 
 ' military age from the elder 5 and dilpofing 
 1 thofe into centuries he formed four bodies 
 f of horfe (a) and foot/ From this paflage 
 it appears, that the knowledge of the mili- 
 tary ftrength of the ftate was intended in 
 this inftitution, as well as the regulating the 
 public revenue. It was neceilary to obferve 
 this here 5 that the reader may the better judge 
 of fome arguments that follow. 
 
 2. W e fhallnow confider the force and 
 import of the words St. Luke makes ufe of 
 in his account of the matter before us. 
 
 No w it muft be allowed, that the Verb 
 made ufe of by St. Luke in the firft vcrfe, 
 that all Jloould be taxed 01 enrolled (£), is 
 ufed by Greek Authors, for the making of 
 any kind of entry or enrolment. Thus 
 Servius Tullius oblerving many Roman Ci« 
 
 [a) To y.^ot,n<fcv v \ZF9 Sspyii? Tv>jbA% & oyji/uortKurura ficcvi' 
 
 X£6>$ KO,TU,<?U.QiVTCJV VCl/jlf/jCOV, 77^017^' I7?iru\i '?0> UjOliOlC, <Z7TU0~t 
 
 yvvoiiKtov Vj xuioav ovotjmru,, y^ '.iMxazc, savr&jv rs x. Texwr cy 
 oX'.yw £& x,eova) %&\tuv Tt[jui}<rcci/jtvav, £tcc to y,f/zQ&* ty,c, Ttyjagias" 
 tijvt£ >f> &<rioV9 ^nXLcrc/A tisc, u7fu$tiira,vTei$ zon y v^ tv> ffoXiTfiecf 
 %zrTu.y.c<riGiq jrXsutq ivpiSyjo-ccv it ov l»/3ij 'Fa>[&e6iwv 7rs\r$xc(id'iKcx- 
 fAVfioihw fjuirk t*to cfictKfivcu; ras i%ovrel$ t\v rgurivo-iyjcy 
 i-Xixiav "ten t 7egifr(&VTiQ6yr k. A. lib f.C. 7v p. ^i-f. 
 
 D % tize 
 
3 6 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 tizens to be in debt, ordered all of them 
 who had not where-withal to fatisfie their 
 Creditors to enter (a) their names and the 
 fum they owed in public rolls, that it might | 
 be known what the whole amounted to, 
 and provifion might be made for payment. 
 
 This word is likevvife ufed concerning the 
 enrolments which were made,when the Ro- 
 man Citizens gave in their names and in- 
 lifted themfelves in the Service of a Gene- 
 ral (J?). 
 
 S o that perhaps there may be fome reafon 
 toqueftion, whether St. Luke intended not 
 a bare entry or enrolment made by the peo- 
 ple of Judea, of their names and condition 
 of life, as many learned men have fuppofed. 
 
 But yet on the other hand, it is certain, 
 that the whole of a Cenfus is oftentimes 
 exprefiedby the Greek authors, by the words 
 which St. Luke has ufed. Thus T>io Cajfius 
 fpeaking of %yluguftiis'$ firft cenfus, fays^ 
 * in the fame year he finifhed (c) the en- 
 
 < rolments'. 
 
 (a) 'A7roypu<pB&% x.iXiv<ru$ Ttt$ t&nxpiif<i,o<roiTv t v niriv uMwroi 
 itfrccv <P'jhotTTiiv toTc, otpiiXxcriy t£, xo<roviy.u,<?oe,. Dionyf. H*/. L.iv* 
 C IO. p. Z~)J. ('^) Sypipp'sov tthnyg&tyofjjivot ti 7Tfog 
 
 \ • t \ 5 I s \ \j/f, 
 
 TtfS JJ«y*//>0VS6S TCl OVOf/JCCTCf , K. TOV ffCtTlUTtXOV OfJbVUtTi^ Opx.09' 
 
 Dion. Hal. Lib. x. cap. 16. init. (c) '£v J\Jh tS 
 
 T9TS 7rȣ6VTl TCCT& CtfatX, ftp/Tip i^tfO Sfffixfyj *? T *S ttmypOiCftoi,; 
 
Chap.I. GospelHistory. 37 
 
 « rolmcnts :' Hereby meaning, the whole of 
 a Cenfus, including alfo the cenfure of man- 
 ners, which belonged to a Cenfus of Roman 
 Citizens. And in another place, when he 
 particularly defcribes the office of a Cenfor, 
 he fays : ' As Ccnfors, They [The Empc- 
 * rours] enquire (a) into our lives andman- 
 ' ners and make enrolments. 3 He intends 
 therefore in this place the whole of a Cenfus, 
 except the correction of manners, by the 
 noun, which St. Luke makes ufe of in the 
 fecond verfe : only it is in the plural num- 
 ber. 
 
 Farther St. Luke's narration contains 
 in it fo many circumftances of a B.oman 
 Cenfus, that I cannor but think, there was 
 at this time a proper Cenfus. The fubftance 
 of the Decree was, that all the land fhould 
 be enrolled. Again , \ylll went to be 
 tdxed^ or enrolled. And he intimates very 
 plainly, that Mary alfo was enrolled with 
 Jofeph. All thefe are particulars extremely 
 agreeable to the nature of a Roman Cenfus. 
 
 iliTiXia-i' D':o. L. 5-3. p 496.C. ad A U. C. 716. — vid. ctiam 
 pag.<;ii. B. i£«CTd»(ic.Gal]arum] y c etn*/;x$zc st6.j}V«t«,&c. 
 
 (a) 'Ex. 5 TV TlfMITfi/U9 9 TH<i Tt &Uft K. 7 «$ fgKTgf ^5| 
 
 i£«-*£*fr*, tZatnytscpxs xuSrrur id. L. 5$. p. $c8. B. C. 
 
 D s Though 
 
3 8 The & -edibility of the Book II. 
 
 Though therefore the words in Saint 
 Luke, and efpecially rhe Verb in the firft 
 verfe, is u(ed for the making of any kind of 
 entry, yet the whole relation obliges us to 
 underftand it concerning this particular kind 
 of enrolment. 
 
 And St. Luke's words appear to be ex- 
 tremely proper. The Edifts for a Cenfus 
 feem to have generally run in this form, 
 exprefling the duty of the people. There 
 is in Cicero the title of fuch an Ed id, pub- 
 lished by Verres Praetor of bicilie, when 
 a Cenfus was to be made in that Province. 
 It is called An Edict concerning the En- 
 rolment {a). 
 
 I n a Cenfus of the Citizens of Rome, 
 the number of the people was always taken 
 and obferved, but there was a cenfus made 
 of goods and lands, as well as of perfons. 
 This appears from pafTages already quoted 
 from c Dionyfiusoi Halicarnaffus and others. 
 And Livie fays exprefly, that the very de- 
 fign of the inftitution was , that people 
 might contribute to the expences of the 
 
 (a) Edictum de Profession*, Cic* m Ver. Lib. iii. 
 Num. 26. 
 
 ftate 
 
Chap.I. Gospel History. 39 
 
 ftate not by the Head, but in proportion to 
 their eftates (^). 
 
 And for ought that appears, the fame 
 views were purfued in the affefiements made 
 in the provinces. Tacitus indeed fays that 
 the Batavi paid no tribute to the Romans, 
 and furnifned the ftate with arms and {b) 
 men only upon occafion. And fome may 
 be difpofed to infer from hence that there 
 might beenrolmentsmade, in fuch a province, 
 of the names of the people, and their con- 
 ditions of life j in order to know what 
 number of troops it might furnifh the ftate 
 with. 
 
 This is very poflible, and I think, not 
 unlikely. Though 1 have not yet feen any 
 particular ihftance of it referred to by learn- 
 ed men upon this occafion. Some how- 
 
 (a) Ut cjuemKimodum Numa divini audtor juris fuifitt, 
 itaServium conditorem omnis in civirate difcriminis, ordinum- 
 que, quibus inter gradus dignitatis FoRtunaeque aliquid inters 
 lucer, porter i fama ferrent : Cenfum enim inftituit, rem falu- 
 berriraam ranto futuro imperio: ex quo belli pacifque munia 
 
 KON VIRITIM, UT ANTLA, SED PRO HABITU PECUNlARUM, 
 
 f ierent. Liv. lib. t. cap. 41. 
 
 (b) Nee opibus Romanis, focietate validiorum attriti, viros 
 tantum armaque imperio minittrant. Tacit. Hift. lib. iv. cap. 
 11. Nam nee tributis cqntemnuntur, nee publicanus atterit. 
 exempti oneribas 8c collationibus, & tantum in ufum proelio. 
 rum iepotiti, velut tela atque arma belli* refervantur. Id. de 
 Morib. Germ. ap. 20. 
 
 D 4 ever 
 
40 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 ever do fuppofe that the furvey of Judea 
 at this time was made by t^/luguftus with 
 this very view (a). But I believe Judea was 
 the laft place in which the Romans would 
 look for Soldiers. The Jews had formerly 
 ferved the Kings of Syria and Egypt in 
 their wars: They had like wife been in the 
 Roman armies. But now they had fcrupies 
 about ferving Heathens iri this way. And 
 all of them who were in the fervice of the 
 Romans had been difcharged in form (£). 
 Their own Kings kept foreign troops in 
 judea. After the conqucft of Egypt, Au- 
 gustus made Herod a prelent of four hundred 
 Gauls that had been the Life Guard of 
 Cleopatra Queen of Egypt (c). And in 
 the defcription of Herod's funeral folemni- 
 ty> Jofephus reckons up three diftind corps 
 of foreign foldiers, Thracians, Germans, 
 and Gauls (d). Indeed the Jews were at 
 this time fo felf-willed and tumultuous, that 
 (as it feems) no Prince was very forward to 
 put weapons into their hands. 
 
 (a) Breviario igitur quod meditabatur Auguftu?, quantum 
 jniUtum Judaea fuppeditare j>ofiet,includi debuit. Bafnage. Ann. 
 folit. Ecc. ante E>. j". n. xi. 
 
 (b) Jofeph. Ant. lib. 14. cap. x. §. n. 
 
 fc) Id. deB. J. Lib. 1. p. 1006. 15. {d) Ibid.cap.uk. 
 
 fub. fin. 
 
 X RECOI,!,^ 
 
Chap.I. Gospel History. 41 
 
 I recollect but one inftance that 
 looks like a defign of any of the Roman 
 Emperours to take Jews into their Service^ 
 This was in the reign of Tiberius, who, as 
 Suetonius fays, fent the jewijh youth (who 
 were at Rome) under a fort of a military 
 oath into the more unhealthful provinces (a}. 
 But this feems to me to have been more like 
 fending them to the mines than taking them 
 into military fervice. We are certain the 
 Jews did afterward pay tribute to the Ro- 
 mans. And perhaps I may hereafter make 
 it appear they were now, and had been, be- 
 fore this, tributary to the Romans. It is 
 therefore much more likely, that furveys 
 ihould be made in Jurfea with a view to 
 tribute than to military fervice. 
 
 N o r do I perceive, what learned men 
 gain by this. They think it difhonourable 
 to Herod to have the goods of his fubje&s 
 enrolled and rated by a Roman officer for 
 the payment of tribute. But where lies the 
 difference between this, and the numbring 
 and entering his people in order to demand 
 for Soldiers as many men as his country 
 could afford ? If indeed this enrolment of 
 
 (a) Judaeorum juventutem, per fpeciem fecrj ■■■', in pro- 
 vincias gravioris coeli diftribuit. vit- Tiber, cap. 36, v & 
 Spiff/, uinn. 2. cap. 8^. 
 
 LUS 
 
4^ The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 his people had been made by Herod, by his 
 own authority, and at his own difcretion, 
 in order to furnifh the Emperour with a cer- 
 tain quota of men upon occafion, Herod's 
 honour had been faved. But this is not 
 St. Luke's account. There went out a decree 
 from Cefar Auguftus that all the land JJjonld 
 be taxed. And by virtue of this decree of 
 Augnflus all Herod's fubje&s, men and wo- 
 men, in every part of his dominions > were 
 enrolled, with great exa&nefTe, and as it 
 feems with great expedition. And the order 
 of enrolment muft have been very preffing» 
 I do not fuppofe indeed, that the Virgin was 
 obliged at all by the decree to go to Bethle- 
 hem : But I think, that Jofeph would not 
 have gone thither when (he was fo near the 
 time of her delivery, if the enrolment would 
 have admitted of a delay, or could have been 
 done at another time. 
 
 And that this enrolment was performed 
 by fome Roman officer, as well as ordered 
 by an Imperial decree, may be very fairly 
 concluded from the parenthefis, v. 2. Since 
 the main intention of it is to diftinguifh it 
 from another, which was certainly made by 
 a Roman Officer. 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. 43 
 
 M r. Whifton indeed fays, It is very pro- 
 bable that the enrolment of the Jews was 
 made by Herod, at the requeft of (a) Au- 
 guftus. It would have been to Mr. Whifton* 
 purpofe to give a few fpecimens of this ftile 
 of Augnftus or of the Republic toward fomc 
 of their dependent nominal Kings. But it 
 would not have fignified much in this cafe, 
 becaufe St. Luke does not fay, there went 
 out a requeft from Cefar Auguftus, but a 
 'Decree. And therefore we fhould have been 
 flill obliged to call it a 'Decree. And I be- 
 lieve, we may do fo very fafely. We fhall 
 find by and by, from the hiftory of Herod, 
 that it is very unlikely, that ^Auguftus mould 
 havefent Herod 'any requefts about this time. 
 
 AGAIN: Mr. fVhiflon fuppofes that 
 Herod the King of the Jews was requefted 
 or required to get him (Auguftus) a like 
 exaff account of the jewijh nation^ as he 
 had already attained of the reft of the Ro- 
 mm Empire, But if this had been all that 
 Auguftus did, namely, requiring or requeft- 
 ing this of Herod, then Herod muft have 
 ifliied a command or order to all his people 
 to cnrolle themielves. But how came Saint 
 Luke to mention Auguftus's requirement or 
 
 (0) Short view of the Harrrr, of the four Evang. p. 149. 
 
 requeft 
 
44 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 requcft to Herod, and call it a decree too, 
 and yet fay nothing of Herod's order \ I 
 think St. Luke does plainly reprefentthe peo- 
 of Judea in motion for enrolling themfelves 
 in their feverai cities in obedience to Au- 
 guftus's decree $ and he fays nothing of 
 Herod. 
 
 Some have thought that this enrolment 
 was the efFeft of Auguflus's curiofity. And 
 fome exprefllons of Claudius (a) in his 
 fpeech to the Senate about giving the free- 
 dom of the City to the Gauls have been al- 
 leged by learned men as a proof, that affeffe- 
 ments were fometimes made in the provinces 
 purely out of curiofity. For he fays, that 
 he had found a Cenfus to be a very difficult 
 work, even when nothing more was intend- 
 ed by it, than to know, what hisEftate (or 
 riches) was. But even from thefe words 
 it appears, that an account was taken of the 
 Eftates of the people, as well as their names 
 and conditions of life. And the Ccnfors 
 muft have made an eftimation : Ocherwife 
 the value could never have been known with 
 
 (a) Et quidem cum ad cenfus novo turn opere & inadfueto 
 GalHis, ad bellum avocatus eflet. Quod opus, quam arduura 
 nobis fit, nunc cummaxime, quamvis nihil ultra quam ut pub- 
 lice notaefint facuitatesnoftrae exquiratur, nimis magno experL 
 mento cognofcimus. vid. Upf. exmrf. ad Tacit. Ann. xi. A. 
 
 any 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. 4,7 
 
 any certainty. Befides, I think, that all the 
 Emperour intends here, is, that he could 
 eafily conceive with what difficulty a Cenlus 
 was at firft introduced into a Province, when 
 even now a frefh Cenfus was feldom made 
 without fome difturbance. And as a proof 
 of this, he inftances in the rebellion, which 
 the firft cenfus of Gaul produced in that 
 country (a). And though he calls this re- 
 newing a Cenfus, only an inquiry that his 
 eftate or revenue might be publickly known : 
 yet certainly the tribute to be paid accord- 
 ing to the Cenfus is not to be excluded. 
 Princes do not,nor is it reafonable they mould 
 reckon their people only, all their riches. 
 The revenue arifing from the tribute or taxes 
 which they pay is certainly a part of the 
 Prince's riches. The Emperours meaning 
 therefore is, that the making of a Cenfus 
 now is not the impofing any new hardfhip: 
 the great ufe of them is to preferve exact- 
 nefTc and order in the ftate of his revenues, 
 and yet they give people uneafineffe : How 
 much more muft they have done fo formerly) 
 
 (a) Livie fpeaks likewife of this difturbance. Tumultus, 
 qui ob Cenfum exortuii n Gallia erat, coropofaus. Efitom* 
 libri 1 >7 . Liviani. 
 
 More- 
 
4<S The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 M o r e o v e r, the taxing afterwards made 
 in Judea was certainly a Cenfus of Goods as 
 well as Perfons. And yet when St, Luke 
 makes mention of it in Gamaliel's (a) 
 fpeech, he ufes the fame word he does here. 
 
 All the firft Chriftians thought this was 
 a cenfus of goods. It is apparent that 
 Juflin Martyr thought fo, in that he tells 
 the Emperourand the Senate, it was made by 
 their firft Procurator in Judea. Tertullian 
 makes no fcruple to call it very plainly a 
 Cenfus, And Eufebius in his chronicle fays 
 exprefly, that enrolments were then made of 
 goods as well as of perfons. All thefe con- 
 federations, if I miftake not, render it high^ 
 ly probable, that according to St. Luke, 
 there was now a proper cenfus made injudea 
 throughout the territories of Herod. 
 
 But though it be fuppofed, that here was 
 now a Cenfus made, yet a Cenfus is not a 
 Tax. AlTeiTcments were certainly made, 
 that tribute might be paid according to them : 
 and where a Cenfus was made, a tribute 
 might be required. But yet it might be for- 
 bore or remitted. And whether any Tri- 
 
 (a) Mir* txtov uv'irn 'I*J<*s o rxfahxt®* vd toXs ypffun 
 tJjs Zsri'ygcKpM, Aft. V. 37» 
 
 butc 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. 47 
 
 bute was raifcd upon this Cenfus or not, I 
 leave at prefent undetermined. 
 
 Supposing the affair St. Luke gives us 
 an account of to have been a Roman Cenfus, 
 it is poflible two or three enquiries may be 
 here made. (1.) What occafion was there 
 for jfofeph to enrolle himfelf, fince he was a 
 poor man 5 as may be concluded from the 
 feffer ofFering, which the Virgin made at the 
 Temple, for her purification > 
 
 1 anfwer, that it was the Cuftomin a Ro- 
 man Cenfus, for perfons of all employments 
 and chara&ers to enter themlelves ; as ap- 
 pears from the defcriptions given of it, in 
 the authors which I have before quoted. 
 And though Joftph was not a rich man, it 
 does not follow he had nothing. However, 
 whatever his condition was, the Edidt obliged 
 him to give in an account of himfelf to the 
 officers unlefs there was a particular excep- 
 tion made, and only fuch perfons were re- 
 quired to appear who were poffefied of e- 
 ftates to fuch a value. ^Auguftus feems 
 once to have made fuch a Cenlus of the Ro- 
 man Citizens (a). But that this was not 
 
 the 
 
48 The Credibility of the Book li- 
 the ufual method, is evident, becaufe this 
 particular circumftancc of that cenfus is men- 
 tioned as fomewhat extraordinary. 
 
 (2 ) Since Jofeph lived in Galilee, how 
 came he to go up from thence, to be regi- 
 ftered at Bethlehem ? 
 
 T o this I anfwer, that poffibly he might 
 be obliged to it by virtue of fome claufe in 
 the Edidt. Ulpian fays {a), that perfons 
 ought to enrolle themfelves in the place 
 where their eftate lies. Though Jofeph was 
 not rich, yet he might have fome fmall in- 
 heritance in or near Bethlehem, and might 
 be obliged to go thither upon that account. 
 But this I do not infill: upon here. 
 
 S t. Luke gives us this reafon of his going 
 to Bethlehem : becaufe he was of the houfe 
 and linage of 'David, v. 4. It is probable* 
 that this journey was owing to the Cuftom of 
 the Jews, who, whenever they were num- 
 bred, entered themfelves according to their 
 tribes and families. If againft this, it be 
 
 U(r6in<3iP^i r> T%$ T£ s|ft» tics 'iruXicts oiKavrccq %x> •KVocyx&criV 
 >»srey£«4'*<3£> Js«r*s [M twrtfitraa-i rt T»£#%6tvTts m Dio.L.55*. 
 
 P- 557- B. 
 
 (a) Is vero qui agrum in alia civitate habet, in ca civitate 
 profited debet, in qua ager eft. Agri enim tributum in e3m 
 avitatem Hebet levare, in cujus territorio pofiidetur. I.4. §. 1. 
 ff. 4e cenjibus 
 
Chap.I. Gospel History. 49 
 
 obje&ed. That the Jews had loft the regi- 
 fters of their families before this time : J 
 anfwer, that this does not appear. They 
 were reckoned by them to be of great im- 
 portance. And it is not unlikely, that many ? 
 if not moft of them, had the regifters of 
 their families till the final mine of their 
 ftate and conftitution, and perhaps for fome 
 time after ir. Anna is faid to be the daugh- 
 ter of Phanuel, of the Tribe of Asser *. 3 6. 
 Barnabas was a Levite t, Taul affirms, \* cls iV * 
 that he was of the Tribe of Benjamin IIJRw*. ™> 
 Andthefe two were born in foreign coun-p^/ 111.5 „ 
 tries, the one in Cyprus, the other at Tarfus. 
 JOSE? HU S, the jewijh Hiftorian 
 having mentioned the time of his birth, 
 and the names of feveral of his ancestors, 
 fays : ' Thus have I given an account of my 
 * family, as I found it in the publick re- 
 1 cords 3 (a). It is true, Jofephus was of 
 the race of the priefts, and their regiftcrs 
 might be kept with greater care and exa£l- 
 nefle than others : But it is evident from 
 what he fays of the marriages of the priefts, 
 that the regifters of other families were in 
 
 (;») Tw "fji iv ra yivac, iipav eietabjQifl &$ \v rate, a ? : par 10.15 
 AiXroii umytypui/jiJtjiiw svpov, xtwc, zx^nht/.ca'' jfofepb.'m vie 
 inic. 
 
 E being 
 
So The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 being likewife. c Every prieft, fays he, a- 
 
 * mong us is obliged to marry a woman of 
 
 * his own nation, and not fo much to re- 
 
 * gard money or any other advantages, but 
 c to make an exaft enquiry into her defcent, 
 e and to accept of no account but what is 
 « well attefted. This is done not in Judea 
 c only 5 but in all places, wherever there is 
 ' any part of our nation, this law relating to 
 1 the marriages of the priefts is moft careful- 
 ' ly obferved ; I mean in Egypt and Ba- 
 
 * bylon y and every other part of the world, 
 < in which any of our priefts live {a). 
 
 (3.) What neceffity was there, for the 
 Virgin Mary to go to Bethlehem ? Surely, 
 every matter of a family was not obliged by 
 a Roman Cenfus, to appear before the of- 
 ficer, with his wife, children and fervants, 
 if he had any. 
 
 I answer, that I know not of any ob- 
 ligation (he was under by virtue of Auguftus's 
 Ed id to go to Bethlehem at this time : But 
 yet, Jofeph and Mary might choofe it. And 
 
 cOkux, to y»<^- l\i.raZ ) wi dv T kyfcuiw XufAfiuvovTA rw ^xooy^iy 
 j£ 5r»2k»s 7rocpot%o[Atvov [fiupTvpcc? ^ rxZrei %^octto^jIV » [//ovov £3"* 
 
 UVTK ' \X&0(.kXC, &?&' 67CX 5T0TS (TV^i}[A/X T* y«W$ l?\v itfAjOIV, XStKit 
 TO UKfllQs UTTOQ-uZfTM To7$ tyiUCTl flTffi TS$ */&[//%$' X. T. A. COTitm 
 
 Apon, lib. i. §.7, 
 
 they 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. j*x 
 
 they might have very good reafons for it that 
 we are unacquainted with. St. Luke fays 
 ch. ii. 41, 42. Now his parents went to 
 Jerufalem every year^ at the feaft of the 
 Tajfover. And when he was twelve years 
 old, they went up to Jeruialem, after the 
 cuftom of the feaft. And yet by the Law 
 of Mofes, the males only were obliged to 
 appear before God at the great Feafts. And 
 many learned men are of opinion, that our 
 Saviour did not go up to Jerufalem till this 
 paflbver (which St. Luke here fpeaks of) 
 when he was twelve years of age : though 
 his Parents, Mary y as it feems, as well as 
 Jofeph, had gone up to Jerufalem every 
 year ; /. e. from their laft fettiement in Ga- 
 lilee, after their return from Egypt. 
 
 3 . I Shall now give a general defcrip- 
 tion of the flate and condition of Judea 
 under Herod, that we may be able to judge 
 whether a Roman Cenfus could be made in 
 it by virtue of a decree of f^Auguftus. 
 
 The Roman Empire extended at this 
 time to all the mod confiderablc countries of 
 the known world, whether fttuated in Eu- 
 rope, Afia, or Africa. Befide thofc coun- 
 tries which were properly called Provinces, 
 and were governed by Officers fent from 
 E 2 Rom? ? 
 
$% The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 Rome, with the title of Prefidents, Praetors, 
 or Proconfuls ; there were other countries 
 governed by Kings, Tetrarchs or Dynafts 
 dependent upon the Roman State. 
 
 I n the ftate and condition of thefe de- 
 pendent Princes, there was a confiderable 
 difference. Some few received their crown 
 from the Emperour, and acknowledged a de- 
 pendence, but paid no tribute (a)-, among 
 the reft, who were in a more proper fubje- 
 ftion fome were called Friends of the Empe- 
 rour or the Roman State. This was undoubt- 
 edly a very great honour, efpecially when 
 conferred in form (A). Thefe Friends of 
 the Romans furnifhed them with a part of 
 their troops, or with fums of money upon 
 particular occafions; or made prefentsto the 
 Emperour and his minifters, w 7 hen needful. 
 That is, they paid tribute in the genteeleft 
 way. Others were more properly tributary, 
 and were obliged to the payment of certain 
 fums of money : but it is generally fuppofed 
 
 (a) 'FI5 [' ApfAivtus] '?eofAix7oi z% ctg%is<ri fit h <P^f>a x-ofitjidw, 
 civroi 3 kvToT$ bvnfatxf&stri rift ficttriXtctq' Appian. in Praef. irtit. 
 
 (^) Cognitis dehinc Ptolemaei per id belum ftudiis, repeti- 
 tus ex vetufto mos, miflufque e fenatoribus qui fcipionem 
 eburnum, togam piclam, antiqua munera pacrum daret, regem- 
 que & Socium, atque amicum appellaret. Tacit. Ann, lib. iv. 
 cap. 26. vid. & aliud cxemplum apud Dionyf.HalMb, v. cap. 35. 
 P a g- *9 l * 
 
 that 
 
Chap.I. Gospel Htstory. 55 
 that they raifed it themfclves among their 
 people by their own officers. But I fufped 
 that many of thole princes called Friends 
 were properly tributary, and that the Em- 
 perour had an officer in the territories of 
 moft of them who took care of his revenue. 
 Befide thefe, there were (if I miftake nor) 
 fome countries under the government of 
 dependent Kings, in which a tribute was 
 raifed in the way of a Roman Cenfus. 
 
 That Herod was a dependent Prince, 
 1 think, was never denied. He obtained the 
 kingdome of Judea at firft by virtue of a 
 decree of the Roman (a) Senate; and was 
 aflifted in taking poiTeffion of it by Roman 
 troops commanded by their own (Jf) officers. 
 t^Auguftus gave him leave to nominate for 
 his Succeilbr which of his fons he pleafed. 
 But yet in his laft will there was a claufe, by 
 which the final determination of all was 
 fubmitced to the will and pleafure of the 
 Emperour. And after his death his fons 
 were obliged to go to Rome (c) to obtain 
 the grant and confirmation of Auguftus, be- 
 fore they dared to take poiTefTion of the 
 territories affigned them by their father. 
 
 (a) Jofeph. de Bell. lib. i, cap. 14. fin. 
 
 (£) Ibid. cap. 18. 
 
 (c) De Bell. lib. z. cap. 1. 
 
 E $ That 
 
5*4 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 That Herod was tributary to ^Auguftus 
 immediately before his death, feems evident 
 from the Sentence pronounced by the Em- 
 perour after he had confidered Herod s will. 
 
 * To Archelaus were given, fays Jofephus, 
 
 * Idumea, and Judea, and the country of 
 
 * the Samaritans. Thefe were eafed of a 
 e fourth part of their tribute, Cefar decree- 
 
 * ing them this relief, becaufe they had not 
 joined with the other people in the late 
 
 * difturbances {a)\ I think it moll reafona- 
 ble to underftand this of a tribute paid, or 
 to be paid, not to Herod or Archelaus out 
 to the Emperour. If the Samaritans were 
 tributary to Cefar, the Jews were fo like- 
 wife. It is plain thefe were not more fa- 
 voured than the former. And they w«.re 
 both equally fubjed to Herod and Arcle. 
 
 IflUS. 
 
 That Herod had been always tributary 
 to the Roman Empire, may be inferred from 
 what Agrippa the younger fays to the jews 
 in his Speech to diffuade them from the 
 war. c At this time, fays he, the defire of 
 
 (a) Ta ^' Ayx&oia <rvvTtXxvTce, 'ihfActToc rs *£ 'Ixhtfa, to, ts 
 'ZocpupuTucar rtrufTX pipm *»"« T 3 (p'o^m TrccgsteXvvro, ¥^a.i<rcc- 
 «@u uvtoTs xytpiiriv ynpurxf/bailf && to [/*» (rvvcc7ro^ii(rcit tjj Ae«r*j 
 xXntot fofepb. Ant. lib. 17. cap.xiii. §. 4. vid. & de Bell. lib. 
 ii. cap, vi. 
 
 liberty 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. ?? 
 
 liberty is unfeafonable. It had been much 
 better to have maintained it with vigour 
 formerly.— Then all ought to have been 
 done that was poffible, to have kept out 
 the Romans, when To'mpey firft entered 
 into this land. But our anceftors, and 
 their kings, fuperior to you in wealth, in 
 flrength and conduct, yielded to a fmall 
 part of the Roman power. And you 
 now the hereditary fubjeds of the Romans 
 attempt to refill their whole Empire (a)* 
 And jofephus in his fpeech to the jews 
 befieged in J. j nifalem t to perfwade them to 
 furrender to Titus, plainly dates the begin- 
 ning of the jewijh fervitude to the Ro- 
 mans from Fompy's conqueft of Judea (<£). 
 It may be concluded from hence, that from 
 that time the jcjus were tributary to the 
 
 (a) 'A2&G6 fAjf,v roys w» sXtvOipt'as iiriGvutiu u&paf, £Uv Imp 
 
 r» \m\oi UTroBccXiiv avrviv uyavi^iSai Trpirspot. -tots *h «» 
 
 *%fw vearei uarsp 7S «/.»« ai\«.Ha,i 'fa pains *«£•», ctz t*jv &£%$* 
 t7r&B&m rSs %^(V^ Uefxaryit©-* k/>\ «n (a yyjzrtgoi xpoysyci, j£ 
 ci Qcz<riXz7$ etvrSf, 1$ %e?,tAX(ri t§ (rap act t§ "\"^X U ^ XfAsivw ut&u* 
 7fo>is.w foatxsifAtivoi, »"po§ poTpstv oAtysjv \*Cy * Pap, hum evv&u,s*>i «* 
 
 UVTiftOV Oft/Sif h, ii TC fA "CZZUX-iSCiV Q4t OiUdo%K$ X0C pZlXr^OTsS— — 
 
 5rpo<S oXr,v wOfefirfa ?*? 'I'kuxivv rtytptww yofepb- de Bell. lib. 
 ji. cap. 16. pag. icSj-. 1086, (b) TlcQtv s\' £f£«p*fo 
 
 ^aXtU^y up ixi W f<*<r&>t T Wftyowf, trt i '.Apjfs/SyAtf, >§ 
 Ypx<tv« yjiititty k, sj xpo$ it)kt)X%fi tfnq n«fMFMM inityecyt rj? naXfi, 
 
 j§ 'PeifhttU^ WiTtfhi Q$% xh\ «* ££<«$ fawfcjuW id, ibid, lib* 
 v, cap. ix, p. 141. fin. 
 
 E 4 Romans 
 
$6 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 Romans. Subjection and Servitude muft 
 needs imply the paying of Tribute, 
 
 ATT I A N mentions Herod King of 
 the Xdumeans and Samaritans among the 
 other Kings, who, according to Mark An- 
 tony $ direction, were to bring in a certain 
 prescribed tribute (a). Antony and Herod 
 were always very good friends, and it can- 
 not be luppofed that Herod was better ufed 
 by Augufius than he had been by Antony* 
 
 I N the ftory of the difference between 
 Herod and Syllaeus the Arabian, which 
 difference ieems to have arofe about three 
 years before Herod's death, and to have con- 
 tinued a year or two at left, if not as long 
 as Herod lived, there is a paiTage that defer ves 
 to beobferved in this place. c Syllaeus more- 
 6 over bribed Fabatus, Caefar's Procurator, 
 
 * and employed him againft Herod.But Herod 
 c by a larger fum of money drew off Fabatus 
 ' from Syllaeus, and by him required the 
 
 * performance of thofe things which Cefar 
 
 * had ordered (to be done by Syllaeus*). 
 c However Syllaeus went on in his old way 
 
 * performed none of thofe things 5 andmore- 
 
 * over accufed Fabatus to Cefar, faying, that 
 
 diUelhCiv. iib. v. pag. 1 135. 
 
 < he 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. ?j 
 
 € he was a Procurator more in Herod's in- 
 terefts than the Emperours (a)'. By Tro- 
 curator can be meant no other than an 
 officer that took care of the Emperour's 
 revenue. And the nature of the charge feems 
 to imply, that Fabatus had a truft under the 
 Empcrour in Herod's dominions. This 
 indeed may be queftioned, becaufe that after- 
 wards, Syllaeus having killed Fabatus , Are. 
 tas the King of ^Arabia profecuted Syllaeus 
 at Rome for the murder of Fabatus ', as well 
 as for other crimes committed by him (£). 
 And from hence it may be inferred by fome> 
 that Fabatus was rather an officer in <_Arabia. 
 Let it be fo. However, here is a proof, that 
 the Emperour had a Procurator to take care of 
 his tribute or revenue in the country of a 
 dependent Prince : for (uch was the King of 
 ^Arabia. And it is not impoffible, that 
 Fabatus might be concerned in both thofe 
 Kingdoms, of Judea and Arabia. 
 
 (a) Ilticrc&s ;} [Xvt&ou©"'] jro/&o<s ^^fjjx<n ^xpuroyrlvKaMret- 
 
 tctyi<?v)<ri n &zv 1,'jXxm QctfloLTov, j£ £i &.'jtz roc, tcste vg r tsr r # taw 
 
 irpbq KxirccpcCy J»o»»jjtjjv hvxi Xiyav, & t iKiiva, t p ^Hgcaht m/p. 
 Qsporrw Jofeph. dt Bell. lib. 1. cap. 29. p3g. 1030. V. li.-~ 
 (£) Vid, Jofepb.Ara Mb. 17. cap. 3. 
 
 Upon 
 
5*8 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 Upon the whole then, Herod was al- 
 ways a dependent tributary Prince. Whether 
 he was at laft obliged to fubmit to a Cenfus, 
 will be the fubjed of enquiry under the next 
 head. 
 
 All that I would fhew farther here is, 
 that a Cenfus was not inconfiftent with the 
 rights allowed to thefe dependent Princes, 
 according ro the Roman conftitution. This 
 is generally denied, and therefore fome proof 
 muft be given of it. But it cannot be ex- 
 expe&ed, that I fliould produce many ex- 
 amples of a Cenfus made in dependent king- 
 doms: partly, bccaufe the Roman Hiftoriaii,? 
 never take any notice of thefe things, un 
 lefs they are attended with fome accidents 
 that render them remarkable : and partly, 
 becaufe the Romans had feveral waysot rai- 
 ling tribute 5 and a Cenfus, which was the 
 moft diiagreeable way of all, was not u(ed 
 in all thofe countries that were properly pro- 
 vinces. 
 
 After the battle of Thil'ippiy in which 
 Brutus and CaJJius were defeated, Mark An- 
 tony went over into i^Afia, and coming to 
 Ephefus, fummoned theftates of the nations 
 thereabout to give him a meeting. In a 
 fpeech he made to thefe States^ among 
 
 othec 
 
Chap. I. GospelHistory. 
 
 other things, he tells them : * Your King 
 Attains bequeathed his kingdome to us by 
 c teftament. Our government has been mil- 
 ' der than his was. For we remitted the 
 c taxes you had been wont to pay to him, 
 € till men of turbulent fpirits arofe amongft 
 c us, and laid us under a neceflity of demand- 
 ' ing tribute of you. And even then we did 
 1 not impofe it upon you in the way of a 
 
 < Cenfus, that we might colled it with the 
 
 < lefs hazard and trouble to ourfelves, and 
 « required only the annual payment of alum 
 ' of money out of the produce of your 
 c country (V).' In the conclufion they a- 
 greed to pay a whole nine years tribute in 
 two years time. The battle of Thilippi 
 was fought (b) A. U. 712. Attains died 
 [c) A. U. 621. So that A$a (Propria) had 
 been then a Province 90 years, and yet they 
 had not had any Cenfus among them. It is 
 not likely therefore,that we fhould meet with 
 many inftances of a Cenfus made in depen. 
 dent kingdoms. 
 
 (0) Exu •} zotqcriv, a 7rpo$ roi rif/jy^xrot, vimv iTrtv^KcCf/ziv, a>q 
 lev v^jiic, uy.ivJbvov tp'ogov iK?JyoifA,£v, uXbct fjutgt) (pifuv T 2 iKcc^nrt 
 Kc&yxZv i7Fi7u%o[jtjtr Afpian. De Bell, Civ. Jib.V. pag. 1074. 
 
 (b) Vid.Petavii Raiionarium Temporum Part. i.lib. iv. cap. 20^ 
 
 (c) Vid. ibid. cap. 14. 
 
 TACITUS 
 
 ?9 
 
60 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 T A CITUS however has given us one 
 inftance. About this time> fays he 9 c the 
 
 * Cilicians fubje& to Arch elans the Cappa- 
 c docian (a), being required to enrolle them- 
 € felves in our way, and to pay tribute ac- 
 cordingly, withdrew into the faftneffes of 
 mount Taurus : and by the advantage of 
 
 c the fituation, maintained themfelves againft 
 1 the weak forces of the King 5 till Marcus 
 
 * Trebellius came into his afliftance from 
 < Vitellius Prefident of Syria with four 
 ' thoufand Roman Soldiers, and a body of 
 1 Auxiliaries, &c. (b). 
 
 B y Cilieia I here underftand not Cilicia 
 the Plain [Cilicia Carnpeflris\ which had 
 been 1 Roman Province long before this, but 
 Cilicia the Rugged \_Afpera\ which had 
 been annexed by Auguftus to the Kingdome 
 of Cappadocta [c). Ir is true, that upon 
 the death of old Archelaus, A. U. 770, 
 
 (a) Or, that had been fubjeft to Archelaus the C*ppadocUn. 
 
 {6) Per idem tempus Clitarum natio Cappadoci Archelao 
 fubjecla, quia noftrum in modum deferre cenfus, pati tributa 
 adigebantur, in jug* Tauri Montis abfeetfit: locorumque in- 
 genio fefe contra regis imbelles copias tutabantur ; donee 
 M. Trebellius Legatus a Vitellio praeiide Syriae cum quatuo r 
 millibus legionariorum, & dele&is auxiiiis mifTus, duos colles 
 operibus circumdedit : & erumpere aufos, ferro, ceteros, fiti 
 ad deditionem coegit. Tacit. Annul, lib. vi. cap. 41. 
 
 (c) Vid. Strabonem lib. xiv. p. 987. D. 
 
 A. D. 17. 
 
Chap.I. Gospel History. 6l 
 
 A.D.i 7.(^), the Kingdome of Cappadocia was 
 reduced totheftate of a Province (b)$ and 
 this disturbance, which Tacitus here fpeaks 
 of, isplacedby him in A. U. 789. A.D. 36. 
 (c). But Tacitus has no where faid, that 
 this Cilicia was made a province. If it had, 
 he muft have known it ; and could not have 
 fpoke of it, as he does here. He lays, that 
 the people maintained themfelves in their 
 faftnefifes againft the King's weak forces^ till 
 a General arrived from Vitellius with a rein- 
 forcement of Roman Soldiers. If it had 
 been a Province, he would have laid, that 
 the people had been too hard for the troops 
 which the Prefect had with him. And this 
 account is in the main confirmed by feveral 
 other Hiftorians, who fay, that this Cilicia 
 was governed by Kings till the time of Vef- 
 pafian [d). 
 
 Nor is it very hard to trace the fortune 
 of this people from the beginning of the 
 reign of Caligula to Vefpafian. For 'Bio 
 
 (a) C. Coelio L. Pomponio Cojf. (£) Regnum in 
 
 provinciam reda&um eft. Tacit Ann.Xih. ii.cap.41 . (c) QJPIautio 
 & Sext. Papinio Cojf. (d) Item Thraciam, Ciliciam, 
 
 & Comagenem ditionis regiae ufque ad id tempus, in provinciae 
 forrnam redegit. Sueton. in Vefpaf. cap. 8. Item Thraciam, Ci- 
 liciam Tracheam, & Comagenem, quae fub regibus amicis 
 fuerant, in provinciarum forrnam redegit [Vefpafiantij]. Eutrop. 
 lib. vii. cap.xix. 
 
 fays* 
 
6% The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 fays, that Caligula gave the Maritime Cili- 
 cia y (which was another name of this coun- 
 try) to Antiochus, as an acceflion to his 
 kingdome of Comagene {a). Before Cali- 
 gula died he took it away from him. And 
 by Claudius it was again reftored to the fame 
 Antiochus (Jf). And from an account, which 
 Tacitus has given of another tumult of this 
 people, A. U. 805. A. D. 52. \_Faufto 
 Sulla & Salvio Othone Coff.~\ they appear 
 to have been then fubjeft to Antiochus (r). 
 And it is likely they continued under him 
 till it was made a province by Vefpajian* 
 becaufe Comagene alfo was at that time 
 reduced to a province, as appears from Sueto- 
 nius and Eutropius already quoted 5 and 
 from Jofephus, who fays, that this Antiochus 
 was diipofleffed of all his dominions in the 
 fourth year of Vefpafian (d). 
 
 (#) 'O ^ 'AvTio%aTz tx 'Atio%8 tw Kofjuyjciymv, w o nuryig 
 
 &VTX *%*, £ 7Tf>0$tTl >§ T* 7TCCpOC.8x^.l>ioSlOC T«? K(AtJ«&$ <^s' Dio. 
 
 lib. 5*9. p. 645-. D. (<£) Kc" fJOirk txto 7 J rs 'Avno^ot 
 
 riiv Kofjufjtjxyww kxihiM* (6 y> Ttx,i(&' > <£ %iy uvtgs ot ^5 
 uvrhy cttpyignro-) id. lib. 60. pag. 670. A. (c) Nee 
 
 xnulto poft agrettium Cilicum nationes, quibus Clitarum cog- 
 nomentum, faepe 5c alias commotae, tunc Trofobore duce, 
 
 montes afperos caftris cepere.- Dein rex ejus orae Antiochus, 
 
 blandimentis adverfus plebem, fraude in ducem, cum barbaro- 
 rum copias diflocafiet, Trofobore paucifque primoribus inter, 
 fe&is, ceteros dementia compofuit. Tacit. Ann, lib. xii. cap. 
 $5. W Vid. Jofeph. de Dell- Jud. lib. vii. cap. 7. 
 
 i The 
 
Chap.I. Gospel History. 63 
 
 The only difficulty is, who they were 
 fubjeft to, when this cenfus was ordered to 
 be made among them in the later end of 
 Tiberius\ reign. For by the manner, in which 
 the firfl: words of this paflage of Tacitus are 
 quoted by Cardinal Noris {a), and by Tagi 
 {b) from him, they muft have underftood 
 by Archelao fubjefia, the people that had 
 been fubjeff to Archelaus, that is, to Ar- 
 chelaus the King of Cappadocia. However, 
 Lipjius and Muretus (c) underftand Taci- 
 tus to fay, that they were then fubjeEt to 
 Archelaus, a fon of the former Archelaus 
 who died at Rome^ A. U. 770. 
 
 I am under no obligation to determine 
 this matter, becaufe it is the fame thing to 
 my purpofe, whether they were now fub- 
 je& to the King of Comagene or fome other 
 dependent prince 5 or whether they were 
 fubjed to a fon of the old Archelaus King 
 of Cappadocia : The im belles regis copiae 9 
 the King's weak forces proving they were 
 under a King. But it feems to me moft 
 natural to interpret Tacitus^ as Lipfius does. 
 The imbelles regis copiae imply, that a King 
 had been mentioned before 5 and therefore 
 
 (a) Noris Cenotaph. Pif. Difl. ii. pag. 508. (b) Appar, 
 
 ad AnnaJ. num. 127. (c) In loc 
 
 Archelao 
 
64- The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 Archelao fubjefia cannot be very fairly un- 
 deiftood to mean no more than a defcriptL. 
 on of thefe Cilicians, to diftinguifh them 
 from others of that name. 
 
 TIBERIUS had been indeed very 
 angry with old Archelaus. But neverthe- 
 leffe, he might be willing, when he had made 
 his kingdome of Cappadocia a province, to 
 give one of his fons this fmall appendage of 
 it. This Cilicia was far from being any 
 ftrong temptation. The country was moun- 
 tainous, and the people were apt to turn to 
 robbery or piracy, and for thefe reafons 
 they had been given before by Augufius to 
 the ; above-mentioned Archelaus (a). Cap- 
 padocia had been a very rich booty to TL 
 berius. Upon its being made a province, 
 by the ready mony and efFe&s of Archelaus 
 and the revenues of the country, fuch fums 
 came into the public treafury of the Ro- 
 mans, that their tax called the hundreth 
 fell immediately to a two hundreth {(?). We 
 may therefore fuppofe, that by Archelaus 
 here is meant a fon of the former King of 
 
 (a) Vid. Strabo lib. xiv. p-987. D. 
 
 (6) Regnum ejus in provinciam redactum eft; fruftibufyne 
 ejus levari fojfe centejimae veft'tgal, profeflus Caefar, ducen- 
 tciina«m ia pofterum ftatuit. Tacit. Ann.Xib, ii. cap. 41. 
 
 Capo* 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History, 6f 
 
 Cappadocia, tho' he be an obfeure perfon. 
 And the weakndTe of the king's forces is an 
 argument, that he was no considerable prince, 
 and that thefe people were his only Subjects. 
 
 Though here be but one example, it is 
 fufficient for my defign. I believe ir was dis- 
 graceful to a Prince, to have a Ccnfus made 
 in his dominions. However, Tacitus docs 
 not infinuate, that there was any injufiicein 
 it, or that it was absolutely inconfiftent with 
 the rights indulged to dependent Princes : 
 and the King, to whom this people were 
 Subject, Supported this ccnfus, as far as 'he 
 was able. 
 
 4. 1am now to enquire, whether we 
 have any rcafons to believe, that there was a 
 Cenfus made in Juiea at this time. 
 
 W e can hope for no light in this matter 
 from any author but Jofephus, except the 
 notice which the Chriftian writers have taken 
 of it. If we will rely upon them, I think 
 the point is decided already : but at prefent 
 we will lay afidc their tcftimonies, and con- 
 fine our enquiries to jofephus. 
 
 That Herod was always tributary has 
 been proved. I apprehend, that toward the 
 later end of his reign there was lomc alte- 
 ration made in hiscircumftanccsfor the worfe. 
 
 F In 
 
66 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 In order to judge of the evidence there is for 
 it, we muft trace the hiflory of Herod's af- 
 fairs about this time. 
 
 OBOT) t^4 S was now King of Arabia, 
 and Syllaeus his chief Officer under him* 
 who indeed adminiftrcd all affairs of that 
 country with almo(t kingly authority. He- 
 rod had lent Qbodas a considerable fum of 
 mony : When, the time of payment came, 
 Hired demanded the mony, but in vain. 
 Moreover a band of robbers had inf cited 
 Herod s dominions and carried off fevcralof 
 his Subjects, and were afterwards fheltered 
 by Qbodas and Syllaeus in Arabia. Thefe 
 differences between the two courts of Judea 
 and Arabia were brought before Saturninus 
 and Volumnius the Empercur's chief officers 
 in Syria, the neighbouring province. Here 
 it was ftipulated, that Hi rod mould furrender 
 to Qbodas all the Arabians he hod in his 
 cuftody,*and that Qbodas mould releafe all 
 jewijh prifoncts, and pay the mony he owed 
 in thirty days time (a). But, when this 
 time was expired, none of thefe conditions 
 w 7 ere performed on the part of the Arabians. 
 And Syllaeus full of refentment againfti^- 
 rcd fails for Rome. The terms agreed upon 
 
 (d) Jofcph. Ant. lib. \6. cap ix. p. 7; 4. 
 
 not 
 
Chap. L Gospel History. 6j 
 
 not having been performed by Obodas, 
 Herod y with the confent of Saturninus and 
 Vblumnius, marches into Arabia, and routs 
 the forces that oppofed him. Advice of 
 this is immediately fent to Syllaeus then in 
 Italie. He procures an audience of Au- 
 gufiuSy tells him, That Herod had made an 
 incurfion into Arabia, laid waft the country ,, 
 and killed five and twenty hundred Arabians 
 with their General, Augujius having heard 
 this, enquires of Herod % friends at Rome, 
 and of perfons who arrived from Syria* 
 whether this was matter of fad. Being af- 
 fured it was, without ever asking the occa- 
 fion, * He wirites a letter to Herod in very 
 ' angry terms. The fubftance of this letter 
 i was, That whereas he had hitherto treated 
 ' him as a friend, he mould for the future 
 c treat him as a subject (a)\ 
 
 H E RO T> then fent Ambafladors to 
 Rome : But they were forced to return with- 
 out fo much as obtaining an audience. A 
 fecond Ambafly likewife went to Rome 
 without any efFeft (Jb). 
 
 (a) 'Opyji rt /Mti^av iynere ra> Kccio-ctpt, r^ ycutyii xpoq top 
 Mpa^jjx, run oc^cc #fl6A£,Ta!s, y^ txto tv& i7TiToXytc, to Ki^ocXct-iot^ 
 iri zruXxi y^u^hnt^' avru <Pi\a t rut v7tv)x.ou %e*iariTtU' id. ibid* 
 p-73$. (*) 1\ 736 init. 
 
 F 2 itf 
 
6 8 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 I N the mean time Qbodas dies , and 
 Aretas takes upon him the crown of Arabia: 
 and then fends away Ambaffadours to Rome, 
 with large prefents 5 withal accufing Syllaeas, 
 his predeceffor's chief minifter, of many great 
 crimes. But Syllaeus was (till in great fa- 
 vour at Rome, and Auguftus was offended* 
 that Aretas had taken upon him the govern- 
 ment of Arabia without firft obtaining his 
 leave. And fent back the Ambaffadours 
 without receiving the prefents, or admitting 
 them to an audience. c The affairs of thefe 
 
 * two kingdoms of Jtidea and Arabia were 
 ' then in a very bad pofture. In one there 
 1 was a King not confirmed in his govern- 
 1 ment. And Herod having loft the Em- 
 1 perour's favour was forced to fubmit to 
 ' many difgraces and affronts. Seeing no 
 1 end of thefe evils, he relblved to fend 
 c once more an Ambaffy to Rome, and to 
 
 * try whether he could gain friends there, 
 
 * and by them recover the Emperour'sgood 
 
 * will. The perion fent upon this occafton 
 ' was Nicolas or T)amafcus (a)'. 
 
 This 
 
 (a) TflJ 3 TTfp* ty,v 'Ifs^atuv >£ 'Agoifiiuv, u$l jc, jU/S^ov Ik thefts, 
 — T ~$ fiu<riXia>v, 6 "p. vza ty.v fyyjw fizfiaietv ^ojv. — 'Hp*y0ij$ j> 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. 69 
 
 This Nicolas, who was ever firm to 
 Herod's intercft, was a man of great abilities 
 and of admirable addreile. When he came 
 to Rome, Sjrllaeuss power was declining: 
 New informations againft him had been 
 brought from Arabia, and Nicolas artfully 
 joining in with the Arabians procures an 
 audience of Auguftus \ and having firft fup- 
 ported the charges brought by them againft 
 Syllaeus, he proceeded to thedefenfe of He- 
 rod. Here the Empcrour flopped him fhort, 
 1 and bid him anfwer, whether Herod bM riot 
 ' marched his forces into Arabia, and (lain 
 * five and twenty hundred men ? To which 
 Nicolas replied : That the things the Em- 
 Bcrour had heard concerning Herod were in 
 part true and in part falfe, and that the occa- 
 sion of all had been concealed from him. He 
 informed the Empcrour of the differences 
 between O'jodas and Herod: That certain 
 Stipulations had been entered inro in the 
 prefence of Saturnmus and Volumnius : 
 That Syllaeus had fwom by the Empcrour's 
 Fortune, that the terms agreed upon fhould 
 be punctually executed, but that nothing had 
 
 fi.irgtct>r:fcv ixtgiu hot ri T (p.Xcjv, Kj jfpflj Ljt^ &CilCTU£cc rap 
 hivfc.M 7rotwr<ic.f/ttv(&" x. r. >.• p. 7 56, 
 
 F 3 been 
 
?o The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 been done : That Herod had not moved his 
 forces, till he had firft obtained the confent 
 of the Emperours chief officers in Syria y 
 and that the numbers of the flain had been 
 very much magnified. Auguftus, perceiving 
 that his difpleafure againft Herod had been 
 built upon mifreprefentations, was appeafed ; 
 and at length pronounced a Sentence, that 
 Syllaeus fhould return home, give Herod 
 fatisfattion, and then be punifhed for his 
 crimes (a). 
 
 Some time after this we have an account 
 of feme difturbances in He rods family. A 
 very Arid friendfhip had commenced be- 
 tween Antipater Herod's eldeft fon, Theroras 
 Herod's brother, and T k er or as s wife, who 
 was particularly difagrecabie to Herod. Sa- 
 lome, Herod's Mat, who knew everything, 
 fufpe&ed that thelc three were carrying on 
 defisms againft her brother. She came and 
 told him what fhe knew, and Herod had had 
 fome intelligence before, and was full of 
 fufpicions, but what he had heard was not 
 fully confirmed* There follows immediate- 
 ly upon this, a paflage of fo extraordinary a 
 nature, that it muft be tranferibed without 
 any abridgement. ' There was moreover, 
 
 (*) Id. ibid, cap.x pag. 740, 741. 
 
 fays, 
 
Chap.I. Gospfl History. 71 
 
 fays {a) Jofephus, a certain Se£t of Je r jus y 
 who valued themfelves highly for their 
 exa& knowledge of the law, and talking 
 much of their intercft with God, were 
 greatly in favour with the women. They 
 are called T bar i fees, men who had it in 
 their power to controle Kings, extremely 
 fubtle, and ready to attempt any thing a- 
 gainft thole whom they did not like. 
 When therefore the whole jewijh nation 
 took an oath to be faithful to Cefar and 
 the interefts of the King, thefe Men tothe 
 
 ( £ ;) Koa vi'j y* f/jioiov Ti *[xc s aY>tav xyipaxuv It? axgifictHru piyoc 
 
 <P0MXV t5 STWTfJS VOfJjH, C<5 fcXlfi'.V TO Cucy 7rpO(T7rtlliiUjtVUV "izZq/.TO 
 
 jj yjvxiKOJvTTif QxpicxToi k&Xx.txi, /SxtriXlvo-i avvuifjivoi (bx\i?a 
 uyTtTrfccaruv, zrpcyj^iic,, y.cLa. tS ^k"t» tij to ffoXipbiu Ti id 
 fiXccxTitv IxTipU/ivoi' th'jtoc, y£v tx '^oxix.'i fii^xiacavT^ JY 
 oMUV a (Mjy ivveSjrcU Katcxpi, >£ 70% fixo-tXivt, 7TsxyyvXTVy e* oe 
 oi cud^ic, a>c a>fjba<ro6v } cm$ ijsrfp 6>cc>&i%i}.tos jcj xvtxs fiacnXias 
 ^vyjiaxrx.vT'^h' %gtfbcc(riv t v, ^>ieu^a yam tv,v fyys.xy \sa~tp xvtZv, 
 H<rq)ipti' a j cK.yjU'zOfjjiv&i to wyciuv etvrm, ■zpoyiaviv ^i^i^t^ivovTO 
 sjt^oiTKTU tv 0«£, x\aX;yov a)$ 'Hpafy pi xxtuxccvoskc, upy^ 
 \X>o Gf» ryyiQio-fAiViM xvtm Ti ^ yv.il Tea t&7F uvtS } tv.c, Ti 
 (sciviteictc, u$ Tt ixintp *m$%ts<rns «j Qigajatt, zreuaeeq Ttoi'mv 
 etVTofc,. Kafi Tuh^ & y> iXe&vQxn* t>%. ~ct.Xa<[/jr l v J i'txyyt>.7X /ixtnMT 
 KV, y^ OTi T KiP\ tw xvXw cicc.pdi.eouv Ti'.XC,- (c 6 pSLVi'MVC, TT 
 T£ Q>c.pi<rxiuy t*$ u..Tic»TciTX<i xvxifsi, JCj Buyaxv tcv iwSycy y 
 
 Kc&ftr/ Ti TIVX T TOTi 7TpX%0VTX XftTV[ T* SVXpiXifSj X^ 7TXi^lKcC 
 (jVTU. tCVTW KTilVil -) C ZciV 0, Tt TH ClKiiX (TVVtt^^Kii CI? O Q>Ufl- 
 
 (rcci®* tXtyer 'IJ^to ^o Bxyc»iu^ Iz-' xvto)v ac, %xry,p Ti £ svipyirt^ 
 
 070[Accr6'/xr<>yj£y'& , t» i .Tt>c«rc;5"«.^;cr6/>t/ivK r. po'oJy.q-u fiucriXiuc,, 
 
 XX.T06 yjifX fJ iKZkVW %LvTX iiVCCi, 7T afityVT®-' Ot'JTU) yotfAX Tt 
 
 %vv 3 £ xxi?u<rw, riium yvr,<Tiur Antiq. 17. cap. 2. § 6. 
 
 B 4. number 
 
7% The Credibility of the Book IL 
 
 « number of above iix thoufand refufed to 
 € iwear. The King having laid a fine upon 
 € them, Pheroras's wife paid the money for 
 ' them. They, in requital for this her kind* 
 c neffe, (for they were (uppofed by their 
 
 * great intimacy with God to have attained 
 c to the gift of foreknowledge) foretold, that 
 
 * God having decreed to put an end to the 
 c government of Herod and his race, the 
 < kingdome would be transferred to her and 
 
 * Theroras and their children. Salome, 
 c who was ignorant of none of thefe things* 
 
 * came and told the King of them, and af- 
 
 * Cured him likewife, that many of the court 
 1 were corrupted by them. Then the King 
 € put to death the moft guilty of the T/jari- 
 1 fees, and Bagoas the eunuch, and one 
 
 * Cams, the mod beautiful young man a- 
 
 * bout the Caurt, and the great inftrument 
 c in the Kings unlawful pleafures. He likc- 
 f wife flew every one of his own family 
 c which adhered to thofe things which were 
 
 * (aid by the Tharifees. But B ago as had 
 
 * been elevated by them [above all the rejl\ 
 < for lie was to be called father and bene- 
 
 * fa&or, the King who was to be appointed 
 f according to their prediction (Tor all things 
 
 * would be in his power) being to give him 
 
 ? capacity 
 
Chap. I. Gosffl History. 73 
 ? a capacity of marriage, and of having 
 c children of his own/ 
 
 I n the margin (a) I juftify my verfion 
 of this pallage, as to one particular, in which 
 it is fingular. But befide that, poffibly, 
 
 (a) This pafTage of Jofephus has been already quoted very 
 often by learned men, who have treated of this Cenfn$ y or 
 of the true time of our Saviour's nativity. But al), whom I 
 have feen, have followed Gelenius's verfion of thefe laft words, 
 which is thus: Nam Bagoas in earn fpem fiiblatus erat, qua/i 
 parens Sc benefactor appellandus regis, quern deifinarent vaticinia ; 
 profpere enim ceilura novo regi omnia, conftabiliendo fuccef- 
 fionem prolis leg-itimae. They certainiy did not look upon the 
 origira'. If they had, they would have eaiily perceived his 
 miftake. Eythis means they have loft one ftrong argument, that 
 this affair has a reference to our Cenms, as wiJl appear by and 
 by. Doctor Hud/on has very much corrected Gelenius's vei ilon, 
 and tranilatcs the concluding words thus: Fuit autem per eos 
 elatus Bagoas, quod dicerent eum patrem befieficumque appel- 
 latum iri ejus, qui ex eorum praedidticne creandus rex eflet : 
 habiturum enim cum regem omnium rerum poteftatem, &; 
 Bagoae vires conciiiaturum cum muiiere congrediendi, proprioi- 
 que liberos gignendi. But, methinks, the ienfe of this is not 
 very extraordinary, Bagoas is to receive a great benefit from the 
 King, and beftowes none upon him, that 1 fee,- and yet he is to 
 be called Wis Father and Btnefachr. I think, that Jofephus 
 lays, that the Phariftes gave our, that Bagoas was to become 
 or to be called, a Father; and hereby, that is, by his having 
 children would alio be a benefactor to his country. J have 
 made no alteration in the original words of Jofephus. I have 
 only inlerted a comma after ovoyjcc<r6woyjt»^ f and changed the 
 colon after fiurtxU'c, to a comma. This interpretation is not 
 sny own. I had it from a learned and ingenious friend, to 
 whom I am very much indebted for this, and divers other 
 critical obfervations which I highly value, 
 
 fomc 
 
74 The Credibility of the BooHL 
 
 fome may have a fcruple about this Sentence : 
 He likewife few every one of his own 
 family, who adhered to thofe things which 
 were faid by the Tharifees. The original 
 word is in the lingular number, which were 
 faid by the Pharifee, or which the Pharifee 
 faid. If any fhould be apt to think from 
 hence, that this has reference to fome thing 
 faid by fome particular Tharifee, I muft de- 
 fire them to confider the context. It is evi- 
 dent from what goes before and follows that 
 period, that the Pharifees in general are 
 concerned in this affair, though fome only 
 were punifhed, the mo ft guilty, as Jofephus 
 calls them. The fame phrafe is in another 
 place uled by Jofephus, where the Pha- 
 rifees in general are intended. Thus, he 
 fays : ' The S adduce es 9 when in office , 
 
 * ufually go into the meafures (a) of th^ 
 
 * Pharifees ': in the original it is, of the 
 Tharifee. 
 
 I take this oath, which Jofephus here 
 fpeaks of, to be the fame thing with Saint 
 Lukes tax'wg, for thele reafons. 
 
 (i .) As far as I can perceive, this oath muft 
 have been taken much about the fame time 
 
 4xtfi<r*i&- teyw Antiq. iS. c. i. §-4> 
 
 witlx 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. 75* 
 
 with the taxing or Ccnfus mentioned by 
 St. Luke, according to all thofe who place 
 the nativity of Jefus fome time between 
 twelve, or fifteen months and two years be- 
 fore the death of Herod. 
 
 (z ) There is a great variety of cir- 
 cumstances attending this oath in Jofephus y 
 that accord with the hiftory the Evangelifts 
 have given us of the birth of Jefus. I ima- 
 gine I am very much prevented by the reader, 
 but I (hail fpecifie fome of them. 
 
 S t. Luke fays : There went out a decree 
 from Cesar Augustus, that all the land 
 Jhould be taxed. The fubftance of the oath 
 mjofephus was, to be faithful to Cesar, 
 as well as to Herod. An oath is a formal 
 acknowledgement of fubje&ion, as well as an 
 engagement to fidelity. No greater acknow- 
 ledgement of fubjedtion could be made than 
 an enrolment in a Roman Cenfus. St. Luke 
 fays, the decree was, that all the land fhould 
 be taxed, and that all went to be taxed. Jo* 
 fephus agrees with him furprifingly, when 
 he fays, that All the jewijh nation took the 
 oath, except fix thoufand Vharifies. 
 
 S t. Luke's Taxing and Jofephus\ Oath 
 are followed with parallel events. When 
 the wife men came, faying : Where is he, 
 
 that 
 
16 The Credibility of the Book II 
 
 that is born King of the Jews $ Herod was 
 troubled and all Jerufalem with him. Jo- 
 fephus's account is a perfeft comment upon 
 this text of St. Matthew. St. Matthew 
 fays : When he [Herod] had gathered the 
 Chief Priests and Scribes of the people 
 together , he demanded of them where 
 Christ Jhouldbe born. And they faid un- 
 to him, in Bethlehem of Judea : for thus it 
 is written by the Prophet 5 and thou Beth- 
 lehem-— art not the le aft among the princes 
 of Juda : for out of thee Jhall come a Go- 
 vernour that shall rule my people 
 ^' m H'Hsrael. So that all the difturbance at Je- 
 rufalem, which St. Matthew fpeaksof, was 
 on account of the birth of a King of the 
 Jews. And it is the fame thing in Jofephus. 
 And the chief priefls and Scribes of Saint 
 Matthew were undoubtedly of the Vharifees, 
 which are the perfons fo much fpoken of by 
 Jofephus. The King in Jofephus has a cha- 
 racter of the Chrift or Meffias : for All 
 things would be in his power. Whether the 
 jeft upon B ago as, or rather upon the Tha. 
 rifees, be of Jofephus's own invention 5 o 
 whether it was an old piece of wit in ufe a- 
 mong profane people to banter thofe who ex- 
 petted great things from the Meffias 5 or 
 
 whether 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. 77 
 
 whether it be matter of fad, that fome of 
 the Pharifees did at this time give any fuch 
 afllirances to fome perfon of influence in 
 Judea % the better to carry on felfifli defigns, 
 I do not determine. But it is an evidence, 
 that the King, who was then the iubjett of 
 difcourfc, was fuppofcd to bean extraordinary 
 perfon. 
 
 I n ^jofephus the Tharifees give out a 
 prediction, that God had decreed to put an 
 end to Herod\r government 7 &c. This I take 
 to be the very fame thing with the chief 
 priejls and fcribes (a): Thus it is written 
 by the prophet, in St. Matthew : That is, 
 what Jofephus calls a prediction or prophecy 
 of the Pharifees is no more than an inter- 
 pretation or application of an ancient pro- 
 phecy. Thus Jofephus took upon himfclf 
 the aire and character of a prophet, when 
 he applied the ancient jewijh prophecies of 
 
 (a) Unde pufas fac"lum, ut eo ipfo tempore, proximc pod 
 defcriptionem Judaicam Pharifaei va:icinia ifta tractarent, £c j:ra 
 lubitu fuo interpretarentur i" Numquid res ipfa teftimoniura 
 perhibet Matthaei narrationi f Nonne audis mages ab oriente 
 quaerentes, ubi natus fit Rex judaeorum 1 Nonne Her pd cm 
 fcifcirantem a Pharifaeis, ubi Chriftus nafcerctur? His enim 
 occaiionibus, his Herodis mandatis, Pharifaei ad Prophetarum 
 libros remifti, vaticinia de quibus quaerebatur prolata, ad pla- 
 citum uxoris Pherorae, fecretis colloquiis detorferunt. K'pler. 
 de Anno Natal, Chrift. cap. is. 
 
 the 
 
^8 The Credibility of the Book IT. 
 
 the Meffias to Vefpafian. He was taken pri- 
 foner by Vefpafian then General in *$iidea 
 under Nero. Jofephus 9 hearing that Vef- 
 pafian had a defign to fend him to the Em- 
 perour, defired he might ipeak with the Ge- 
 neral in private. Being brought before Vef- 
 pafian^ and all the company being difmified, 
 except Titus and two friends, Jofephus be- 
 gins ; * You think Vefpafian, that you have 
 K in Jofephus a meer prifoner. But I am 
 1 come to you as a meflenger of great things. 
 c Had I not been fent to you by God, I 
 
 * knew what the law of the Jews is, and 
 ' how it becomes a General to die. Do 
 
 * you fend me to Nero ? What! are they 
 c who are to fucceed Nero before you to 
 c continue? You Vefpafian will be Cefar ; 
 € You, and this your fon will be Empcrour. 
 € Bind me therefore ftill fafter, and rcferve 
 c me for your felf. For you (hall be Lord 
 c not of me only, but of the earth and the 
 
 * fea and all mankind. And forpunifhment 
 1 I deferve a clofer confinement, if I now 
 
 * fpeak falfhood to you in the name of 
 
 * God Cay 
 
 (a) *Eya> j Itc\ rip up few £tOf/j*i <ppZ[ci$ p£i'£e>©~, u KttTtJ 
 
 %tfougej xj ©taf- Jof. deB. lib. iii.cap, vii. §. 9. 
 
 HoWEVERy 
 
Chap. I. GospelHistory. 79 
 
 However, befide the an! wer given by 
 the Scribe s to Herod's enquiry, we are tore- 
 member the fpeech made by old Simeon, an 
 eminent Tharifee, attheprefentationofjefus 
 at the temple; and that AnnazVROVWETESST. 
 gave thanks unto the Lord, and /pake of 
 him to all them that looked for redemption 
 in Ifrael. And there might be many other 
 fuch like things faid there by others, to all 
 which Jojephus, a Prieft, and well informed 
 of what was faid and done at the temple, 
 may be juftly fuppofed to have a reference. 
 
 S t. Matthew fays, that when Herody^, 
 that he was mocked of the wife men, he 
 was exceeding wroth, and fent forth, 
 and few all the children that were in Beth- 
 lehem, and in all the coafts thereof And 
 Jofephus has given us the tokens of an un. 
 common rage in Herod, And though Saint 
 Matthew has related, upon this occafion, no 
 other inftance of Herod's cruelty, befide the 
 orders for deftroying the children in and 
 near Bethlehem ; yet nothing is more likely, 
 than that Herod, the moft jealous of mor- 
 tals fhould, upon the retreat of the wife- 
 men, be filled with fufpicions, that the Scribes 
 and Phanfees, whom he had lately confult* 
 ed about the birth-place of the King of the 
 
 Jews, 
 
8 o The Credibility of the Book IL 
 
 Jews, had been acceflbry to the difappoint- 
 ment he had met with from the faid wife* 
 men : and that being heated by the infinua- 
 tions of his filler Salome (provided Jofe- 
 phus has not brought her in here for the fake 
 of a jeft) and by the barbarous counfels of 
 his fon Antipater, now in Judea and in 
 high favour, he fliould then make alfo that 
 cruel ravage in his court and at Jerufalem, 
 of which our jewi/b hiftorian has given us a 
 fummary account. 
 
 (3.) As I think, that Jofephus was a very 
 firm Jew 5 fo his indecent way of fpeaking 
 of this affair is a ftrong proof it relates to 
 the transitions at Jerufalem after the birth 
 of Jefus. Is it not flrangc, that Jofephus 
 
 rfhould banter the Tharifees for pretending 
 to the gift of foreknowledge, when he him- 
 felf, a Tharifee y has been moft notorioufly 
 guilty of it \ I intend not only his fpeech to 
 Vefpafian, juft now tranferibed. There are 
 other, rather more flagrant inftances, and 
 that in the hiftory of (a) the jewijh War, 
 writ long before his Antiquities, in which is 
 the paffage we are upon. His ridicule of the 
 
 («)Vid. de Bell. lib. tii. cap. 7. §• ?'• v ' ld - 8cquae fequuntur 
 Jofcfhi ad Vefpafianum alloquium, ibid. § 9. 
 
 Tharifees 
 
 ^ 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. 8i 
 
 Tharifees appears to me very unfeafonable 
 in an account of fuch a fcene of cruelty, 
 and when they were under very heavy fuf. 
 ferings : And for what > For refilling the 
 oath of fidelity ? No. They had efcaped 
 with zfine for not /wearing to Cefar, &c. 
 if there had not followed fome ofFenfes more 
 particularly againft Herod, as is pretended. 
 And what are thefe? Why predictions and 
 expe&ations, that the kingdome was by the 
 decree or appointment of God to be trans- 
 ferred to fome perfon not of Herod's race » 
 another inftance of agreement with the 
 time that fucceeded the birth of Jefus, which, 
 according to the Evangelifts, was a time of 
 great expectation of a King predi&ed and 
 prophecied of. But here is not one riotous 
 or feditious aftion mentioned or hinred, the 
 utmoft is feditious words. And yet Jofe- 
 phus juftifies, triumphs in thefe terrible ex- 
 ecutions. In a word, he, who ufes to con- 
 demn Herod as a man of an inhumane dif- 
 pofition, here treats the Pbarijtes of this 
 time with Htrodian cruelty. 
 
 All this is abfolutely unaccountable to 
 me, but upon the fuppofition, that this af. 
 fair relates to the birth of Jcfus. Nor do I 
 think, that I wrong Jofephus in the left. It 
 
 G is 
 
8i The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 is to me more than probable, that every 
 Jew, who did not believe Jefus to be the 
 Chrift, as Jofephus did not, had a great 
 deal of ill-will againft him and all his fol- 
 lowers. That any Jew of thofe times fnould 
 have been long in a ftate of indifference up- 
 on this point, wasimpoflible. 
 
 I f it be faid, that the predi&ions men- 
 tioned by Jofephus relate not to Jefus, but 
 to Pheroras's Wife, and her Children : I 
 do not deny, but that flie might pay a regard 
 to what the Tharifees faid at this time, as 
 well as others did : but that (he, or Pheroras, 
 or any one iffuing from them was the per- 
 fon then difcourfedof, and the chief fubjeft 
 of the Tharifees prcdi&ions, I do not be- 
 lieve, becaufe it is inconfiftent with the reft 
 of Jofepkus'b&oyy. If Theroras's wife had 
 been the perfon chiefly concerned in this 
 affair, as Jofephus pretends here, would (he 
 have efcaped with her life in (o wide a fcene 
 of cruelty, in which even the former favou- 
 rites of Herod were involved? If the depo- 
 sitions of people ran now all toward Pheroras 
 and his wife, would Antipater have been 
 ftill great with them ? Would Antipater, fo 
 defirous of the Crown, have gone away to 
 Rome, as he did foon after this execution. 
 
 and 
 
Chap. I. Gospfl History. 83 
 
 and leave things in this pofture ? Would he, 
 when he went away, leave fecurely in the 
 hands of Theroras and his wife the work 
 of poyfoning his father, and fecuring the 
 fucceffion for himfelO Would not Ant ip ti- 
 ter, who had lately, with exquifite artifice 
 and cruelty, accomplifhed the death of his 
 two brothers, fons of Herod by Mafiamne^ 
 have been able to have effefted the mine of 
 Pheroras's wife t It is true, after this execu- 
 tion was over, fhe was called to account by 
 Herod. 
 
 That it may not be infinuated, that I 
 conceal any difficulty, I will here give the 
 reader Jofephus's words which follow next 
 after the long palfage we are concerned with. 
 
 * Herod having puniflied the Pharifees, who 
 
 * had been convicted of concerning them- 
 1 felves in this affair, calls a council of 
 1 his friends, and there accufes Thcroras's 
 1 wife : afcribing to her the affront that 
 
 * had been offered to the virgins ( a), and 
 € therein to him : adding, that fhe did all 
 ' fhe could to create a difference between 
 e him and his brother, that the fine irnpofed 
 
 (a) The virgins] The meaning is: Pheroras's wife had been 
 his fervant. Herod had offered Pherorns one of his daughters, 
 and after that, another. But Pberoras refukd them both ou t 
 ©f his afle&ion for this woman. 
 
 G 3 c upon- 
 
84 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 * upon the Pharifees had been evaded by her 
 1 means, and that in the prefent affair no- 
 f thing had been done without her :-— and 
 < that if Theroras had any regard for him, 
 € he would of his own accord put away his 
 1 wife. You will then, fays he to Theroras, 
 c be my brother indeed, and we fhall live 
 c (a) together in friend fhip/ 
 
 If the meaning of the lafl: words of the 
 charge againft this woman be not, that in 
 the prefent affair nothing had been done 
 without her, as I have rendered them, but 
 that Now a days nothing was done without 
 her, as Doctor Hud/on tranflates them (b) 9 
 then her conduct in the late affair is not (o 
 much as made a particular crime, but is only 
 
 fJjtVXS^ CVViopiGV Ti ZTOMTUi. T (ptA&lV, Kj X.X,T1)ycpiO,V TJJS QifiapV 
 
 yvvcuKoc, Tqv Ti itfipw T 7rct[.6ivavTvj to\[a,% t7ic, yvmiKo$ uvxrifelq, 
 j^ 'iyK^/Moc Toivrw a.Tty/ixv uvrcti ■7roixyj&(&', u?i ecyuvoQiruv 
 eaa-iv ccvtZ 7rpo$ tov ei.oiX<p6v v^ TroXif/jov va <j)vtriCt>$. ccvtoT^ <& 
 Play a) ^ JV 'tpyw oa-oc, £uveuro, tvjv ts hiXwiv tjJs fy[/jict,q t%<; 
 Xz? ccvtzs £7ri{2>i7jhi<n}<; rtXvti £lx<ptv%ttiwi tgic, sKtivqc, t ts vut 
 ?r£7rpccy[Ai&vav iaiv 0, ti & [X>£T glvtw uvd' av tyipw^ot x#A&>5 
 *%stv, * £s*i<ru «<^ yvuf/jcov tunjytxrsas T l^cov^ ccvTcx.iXiv?o» 
 ten7rz[/j7rzo% yvvcciKot. tc&vtw, a)$ jreAs^t/K tS JTf 0$ pus ca utTiur 
 ttrefA/ivjjv Kj vvv, uTTtp c&vTi7Toty cvyyzvtius tyi$ £(/>%$, a7ru7ruoj£ 
 TyvJi ty,v yc,[AiTw m [/jtm$ fi xt&$ S[Ac$ u,hx<pt><i Tt k} rtpyttv ix. 
 knotty pw<&" Antiq. \7». C 3. § 1. 
 
 {b) Suifque impendiis evirata eflet folutio mul&ae ab ipf 
 impoiitae, nihilque jam fine ilia ageretur. 
 
 comprehended 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. 8^ 
 comprehended in a general charge of an over 
 bufy intriguing temper. 
 
 But let it be granted that Jofephus fays, 
 her conduct in this affair was an exprefs charge 
 in Herod's accufation 5 yet the punifhmene 
 propofed confutes the fuppofttion, that (lie 
 was the main agent in this concern. Herod 
 allures Tkeroras, they two fhould be very 
 good friends, if this woman were but put 
 away. Would this difgrace have fatisried 
 Herod, if befide many other provocations, 
 fhe had now been the Principal in a crime, 
 for which many accefibries, and thofe in all 
 other refpe&s very acceptable perions, had 
 been punifhed with death? 1 hope we may 
 be allowed not to credit Jofephus in acir- 
 cumftance fo inconfiftent with the reft of 
 his account. And, 1 think, it is not hard to 
 guefie, why Jofephus gave fome fa lie turns 
 in this ftory. 
 
 I h a v e one thing more to defire of the 
 reader, that is, that he will be plcaied to 
 confider, whether Jofephus does not contra- 
 dict himfelf in the main paflage, in which 
 he is fo merry. He tells us at firft, that the 
 Tharifces, in requital for the kindncflc 
 fhewed to them, foretold, that God had de- 
 creed to transfer the kingdome to Theroras's 
 
 G 3 wije % 
 
&6 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 wife, and Pheroras, and their children i 
 But at the end, it is the King, who was to 
 he appointed according to their prediction. 
 How comes Therorass wife^ and Pheroras, 
 and their children to be all a King ? Or 
 how came the King to be all them \ If the 
 reader can reconcile thefe things together, 
 it will be very well» But if he cannot, I 
 hope he w.ill come over to me, and allow, 
 that here are fome things faid of Theroras's 
 wife and the Tharifies without foundation* 
 I ever take it, that inconfiftences are a cer- 
 tain fign, that an author has not confined 
 himfelf barely to matter of fad, but has in. 
 dulgcd his fanfy and gone into fi&ion. 
 
 FOR thefe reafons then I think, that the 
 Path in Joftphus y taken by all the jewijh 
 nation, is the fame thing with the taxing or 
 cnrolement mentioned by St. Luke. An4 
 I think, that this oath refers to a cenfus made 
 in Judea, for the following reaions. In a 
 cenfus the people gave in an account of 
 themfelves and their eftates upon oath. Ijt 
 feems to me very probable that a cenfus was 
 made, or at left ordered by Auguflus, during 
 the time that Herod lay under his difplcafure. 
 Under the former particular I fhewed that 
 Herod had been, before this, a tributary 
 
 prince- 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. 87 
 
 prince. His great fubjection appears likevvife 
 in the difference between him and Obodas. 
 He was obliged to refer the matter in difpute 
 to the Emperour's officers in Syria. After 
 Obodas had broke the ftipulations, Herod 
 did not dare to move his forces without the 
 content of the before- mentioned officers. 
 And Augujius fuppofing that he had done 
 fo, was very angry, and threatens, that 
 whereas he had hitherto ufed him as a friend, 
 he Jhould for the future treat him as a 
 fubjecl. Thefe words are undoubtedly pro- 
 per and expreilive words. If Herod, when 
 a friend of Augujius, was in fuch fubje&i- 
 on, what can the treating as zfubjeti mean, 
 but the reducing him to the loweft ftate of 
 dependent princes ? Which feems to be that 
 of obliging them to fubmit to acenfus, and 
 then raifing tribute in their dominions ac- 
 cording to it. 
 
 JOSETHUS fays, that after the rcceit 
 of this letter from i_Auguftits, Herod fenc 
 in vain two Ambaffies to Rome, that the 
 ftate of Judea grew worfe and worfe, that 
 Herod was obliged to fubmit to many dif- 
 graces. The Emperours difpleafure againft 
 Herod was manifeft therefore, not at Rome 
 only, but in all the countries about Judea, 
 G 4. (1.) But 
 
S3 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 (i.) But it may beobje&ed, that Jofe- 
 
 phus has no where faid, that there was any 
 
 cnrolement made of the Jews, much lefs 
 
 that there was a proper Cenfus made in 
 
 Judea. 
 
 T o this I anfwer, that it is apparent, there 
 was an enrolement and numbring of the 
 people. How elfc fliould all the people have 
 taken an oath, except fix thoufandPharifees ? 
 Did they not enter the people that took the 
 oath \ If they did nor, how fliould it have 
 been known who fwore and who did not? 
 
 Nor can it be inferred there was no en- 
 rolement or Cenfus, becaufe Jofephus has 
 not exprefly faid there was. Jofephus's ac- 
 count of this matter is very flight and de- 
 fective. If it had not been for fome things 
 which followed after the oath 3 and had fome 
 connexion with it, it feems that he would 
 have taken no notice of it at all. An 
 oath had been taken by ail the jewijh na- 
 tion to Cefar and Herod, and great ex- 
 a&nefle had been obferved in relation to it. 
 The numbers and characters of thofe which 
 had refufed were known. This was an af- 
 fair of importance, and deferved a much 
 more particular account than he has given 
 ps. ^nd we are alloweji to fuppofe fome 
 
 things, 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. 89 
 
 things, not expreiTed, which muft: neccifari- 
 ly have been concomitants of it. 
 
 I do not pretend to ailign pofitively the 
 reafons of his flight mention of this affair. 
 But, I apprehend, I can give fome probable 
 account of it. Herod's fubjc&s were all en- 
 rolled in a Cenfus, but there was no tribute 
 demanded upon it. Herod had great dexte- 
 rity, or very good fortune in furmounting 
 the difficulties he met with in the feveral 
 parts of his life. He was himfelf a man of 
 a great Genius, and fome of his fcrvants were 
 men of great abilities. Nicolas of T)a- 
 mafcus in particular was eminent for learn- 
 ing and addrefle. And Herod knew very 
 well how to bellow a prefent or a bribe. 
 
 I am moreover the rather inclined to 
 think, that no tax was raifed upon this Cen- 
 fus, becaufe it appears that after thefe trou- 
 bles, of which Jofephus has given us an ac- 
 count, Auguftus was in a great meafure re- 
 conciled to Herod. Perceiving, that his 
 refentment againft Herod had been very 
 much founded upon afperfions, he might be 
 difpofed to forbear exacting the tribute up- 
 on the Cenfus, and to let things go on in 
 the old way. Then Herod had taken care 
 that the Decree had been obeyed and exe- 
 
 Sute4 
 
90 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 cuted in his dominions without difturbance : 
 all had fworn or enrolled themfelves, ex- 
 cept fix thoufund Tharifees, and they were 
 fined. 
 
 Moreover, Herod was now an old 
 man, and had many Sons. It was therefore 
 very likely, there would be fome partition 
 made of his dominions at his death. And 
 Augaftus might be very willing there fhould 
 be fo. Three or four little princes are bet- 
 ter governed then one that is powerful. Tri- 
 bute could not be paid according to this 
 Cenfus any longer than the (everai parts of 
 the ktngdome continued united in one perfon. 
 When it came to be divided or parcelled 
 out, a new cenfus would be neceffary. 
 
 I f then no tribute was paid upon this 
 •Cenfus, an hiftorian could the more eafily 
 pafs it by without a very particular defcrip- 
 tion, efpecially fince it had been finifhed 
 without any popular tumults. 
 
 I t may tje inferred from the manner in 
 Which St. Luke mentions this furvey, that 
 it was not very much taken notice of. If it 
 had been univerfally known, there had been 
 hardly any occafion, upon the mention of a 
 decree of Augufius in the reign of Herod to 
 enrole all the land, to fubjoin a parenthefis, 
 
 the 
 
Chap. I. GospelHtstory. 91 
 
 the chief intent of which teems to be to di- 
 ftinguifh this from another that happened not 
 jill after the removal of Herod's lucceiTor. 
 
 If this Cenfus was not univerfally known 
 when Jofephus wrote, he might be well 
 pleafed to touch upon it but (lightly. The 
 jewijh writers were very forward to enume- 
 rate the honours done to their people by the 
 Roman Senate, or the chief men of the com- 
 monwealth, or the Emperours afterwards ; 
 the better to gain fome regard among other 
 nations, by whom they were generally de- 
 fpifed and hated. But as for any difgraces 
 they received from the Romans, the cafe 
 was very different. 
 
 Thus Jofephus has mentioned many 
 favours conferred on the Jews by Julius 
 Cefar, Augujlus, Livia, Marcus Agrippa* 
 Claudius, and other Romans: but yet he 
 fays nothing of the Journey which Caius 9 
 Augufiuss cldcfl adopted fon, made through 
 Judea, in the beginning of the reign of 
 Archelaus. This we have from (a) Sueto- 
 nius only, an author very little concerned 
 \njewi[h affairs. The rcafon feems to be, 
 
 (a) Sed 8c Caium Ncpotem, quod Judaeam prietervehens 
 apud Hierofolymam noa fupplicafier, collaudavit [Auguftus]* 
 Sueto in Aug. cap, 93 . 
 
 that 
 
cjx The Credibility of the Boot If. 
 
 that Cairn offered no facrificeat Jerufahrn, 
 nqr made any prefent to the temple, which 
 was deemed apiece of contempt (hewn to 
 their religion. 
 
 Possibly, Jofephus found but a (lender 
 account of this tranfa&ion in the Hiftory of 
 Nicolas of T)amafcus 7 from which he took 
 his materials for this reign. Though Nicolas 
 was no JeWy yet he was a great friend and 
 flatterer of Herod : and it could not but be an 
 ungrateful task to him, after that he had 
 in the former part of his work drawn his 
 matter as a great genius^ a founder of cities, 
 and friend of Augitftus, todefcribc atlaftfo 
 difagreeable a fcene as that of one of the 
 Emperour's officers enrolling all the fubjects 
 of his dominions. 
 
 N ICO LAS (a) had great intimacies 
 with Herod. Jofephus has affirmed more 
 than once, that he was a great flatterer (b) of 
 him. And in one place fays particularly, 
 
 * That living in his kingdome and together 
 
 • with him he compofed his hiftory with a 
 c view to pleale the King and advance his 
 1 intereft, touching upon thofe things only 
 
 (a) Kfiti N<»<j/\eses o Ac/^ecu-^vo^ <pi\oc, n m tS fixviXzac,, x* 
 rot 'Xcctroe. rwd'tociTa^vJoc, sxu'vai, %. A. Antiq. 17. c. 5 • §. 4. 
 
 (b) Ibid. 1. 14. c. 1. § 3. 
 
 1 which 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. 95 
 
 * which made for (a) his honour/ This 
 inrolemenr, even though it was not a proper 
 afieflement, but only an entry of the names 
 
 . of all the people, their age and condition, 
 accompanied with an oath of ftrid fidelity 
 to the Emperour, muft have been the great- 
 eft mortification of Herod's whole life: and 
 from the character of Nicolas, juft fetdown, 
 it may be concluded almoft with certainty, 
 that he did not give a particular account of 
 this affair. Nor had Joftfhus any induce- 
 ments to fupply his defe&s in this place. 
 
 (2.) But it will be faid, that the filence 
 of Jofephus is not the only difficulty : there 
 is in him well nigh pofitive proof, that there 
 had been no cenfus or enrolement made in 
 Judea before the removal of ArcPjelaits. 
 For upon the occafion of this, he fays; 
 
 * Moreover Cyrenius came into Judea, it 
 1 being annexed to the province of Syria, to 
 c to make an afleffement of their goods and 
 1 feife i^lrchelaus's eftate. The Jews were 
 
 * at firft very much moved at the (b) men- 
 € tion of the enrolements, but by degrees 
 
 (a) Z<ym »^> c* rvf fict<riXnu. $ fuv ccvtu', xi^tt^iT^in^c, Iku»» 
 j£ kcc6 \z3-v)fi<ria,v ctyiy{u<piv y [*ovov <x.7rroptii&* T Trfbq wkXux* 
 kvTu QtpotiTw Antiq. 16. c.7. §. 2. 
 
 (6) 'Oi -j Kau7Tip to Kctr u^xat, c* }('*a tptpovrtq tIj* t?r\ tcu$ 
 jnr«yfccQttTi *k(ohw Antiq. 18. c. i.§. 1. 
 
 J « they 
 
94 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 1 they were brought to acquiefce at the per- 
 ' fwafion of Joazar the High Prieft'. He i 
 obferves alfo, ' that at this time Judas the 
 * Gaulanlie excited them to a rebellion, 
 ' telling them, that a cenfus would intro- 
 1 duce downright {a) flavcry.' It will be 
 faid; It may be hence inferred, that there 
 had been no enrolments made before : if 
 there had, they could not have been fo fright- 
 ful now. 
 
 Ianswer, that there muft have been an 
 enrolment made, when the oath mentioned 
 by Jofephus was taken : And that oath was 
 likewife an exprefs and folemn acknowledge- 
 ment of fubjeftion to the Romans. 
 
 Besides, though this oath had been 
 quite omitted by Jofephus , it would not 
 have followed, that there had been no en- 
 rolment made before this time in Judea. 
 People are not always of the fame temper. 
 Judas of Galilee now broached or revive^ 
 the principle, that they ought to obey none 
 but God : and for fome reafons it was re- 
 ceived with great applaufe, fpread and gained 
 ground. But the Jews muft have been 
 more fubmiflive, when they all took the 
 oath to Cefar, except fix thoufend. And af« 
 
 W Ibid. 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. 95" 
 
 ter Herod was dead,there was a very nume- 
 rous EmbalYy fent to Rome in the name of 
 the whole jeiuiJI) nation, entreating, that 
 inftead of being governed by any of Herod s 
 dependents, c they might be annexed to the 
 € Province of Syria, and be fubjed toPrae- 
 1 tors fent from thence, promifing likewife 
 
 * a moft quiet and peaceable behaviour under 
 € fuch a government {a). 
 
 I n another place Jofephus reprefents 
 Judas's arguments in thefe terms : < And 
 
 * at this time a certain man called Judas the 
 
 * Galilean excited the people to rebellion, 
 c telling them they had a mean fpirit if they 
 
 * could endure to pay tribute to the Ro* 
 c mans, and acknowledge mortal men for 
 
 ' their Lords after God had been their 
 
 1 King (£)'• It might be as well inferred 
 from what "Judas fays here, that the Jewt 
 had never before paid tribute to the Romans, 
 or been fubjecT: to mortal Lords, as from 
 what he fays in the other place, that they 
 had never before been enrolled. 1 prefume 
 
 {a) 'He ^j x-itpuXotiot uvT0i$ <? G&lia<ria>c t (Zaa-iXiiaz p £ t<*Z» 
 
 ?<£$ tKua-i xtftjxofjtj'tvoHi rf>ec,TKyo7$' k. r. A. JoJ, Ant. 17. p. 784* 
 V. 35. {b) KctKityv, u <p'o£ov n 'Pupxioii T*hfi» tdtepvi- 
 
 *»«•*, >§ fittrx Tlf 0«* cV»c* twit ^sa-7r^Tfc^ De BelU lib. ii« 
 cap. S. J. I. 
 
 it 
 
9 6 The Credibility of the Book IL 
 
 it need not be proved, that they had been 
 iubject, before this, to mortal Lords. I 
 think too, that I have fhewn, they had 
 been tributary to the Romans in the reign 
 of Herod. They had likewife paid Tribute 
 to the R omans before Herod's reign : For 
 Jofephus fays, that Coffins c impofed a heavy 
 
 * tribute upon the people [in Syria']. And in 
 
 * particular bore very hard upon Judea, ex- 
 
 * a&ing of them leven hundred talents of 
 f filvcr (V)\ This fum was laid in fevcral 
 portions upon the fevcral parts of Judea, and 
 Herod^ then Governour of Galilee under 
 Hyrcanus y brought in his quota the fi.rfb 
 and thereby very much obliged Caffius, 
 Judas's fpeech therefore is no proof, that 
 there had been no enrolment or Cenfus 
 made in Judea before the removal of yJr m 
 chelaus. 
 
 (3.) I can think of but one difficulty 
 more. Perhaps fome will fay, my argu. 
 ment is de.fe&ive, and that in order to make 
 it out, that this oath, taken by the Jews, 
 in JofephuSy was a cenfus, I ought to pro- 
 duce fome palTage of an ancient writer, in 
 
 (#) Kett <papfc'$ oivrouc, (AiycaXat; stfSTiOsf fJbecXiTec j Try 'liteUtciv 
 
 iKocKua-iVi foTxx,o<rix tx?mvtx kqyvfo h<rv[#TTO[Aiiv&'* Ant. lib* 
 14. cap, xi. §.i. 
 
 which 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. 97 
 
 which a cenfus is called an Oath, or the ad 
 of the people enrolling themfclves in a cen- 
 fus is expreffed by taking an oath. I own 
 then, that I have not any fuch example by 
 me. However, I would offer here two or 
 three confiderations. 
 
 [i.] In a Roman Cenfus the people gave 
 in their account of themfelves and their 
 eftates upon oath. And that oath, as repre- 
 fented by Dionyjius, has a very near reiem- 
 blance with the words of Jofephus. TDiony- 
 (ius fays, the people were commanded to 
 take an oath to give in a true account ac- 
 cording to the befl of their knowledge: and 
 Jofephus fays, that the whole jewijh nation 
 engaged by an {a) oath to be faithful to 
 Cefar and the interefls of the King. 
 
 [2.] VV e have in the ancient writers very 
 few accounts of alTeffements made in pro- 
 vinces. The Roman hiftorians fcarce ever 
 take any notice of them, but when they 
 were attended with fome diftuibances which 
 
 (a) There is another thing which msy deferve nctce. 
 Dior.yfiHs fays, That the penalty at Rome for not enroll ng in 
 a cenfus was lofs of eftate and citizenfhip. Perhaps the fine 
 impoied on the Pbarifeej, who refufed to fwear 4 was now 
 ordered in conformity to the Roman Cuftoms upon like occa- 
 fions. For Herod had been wont before to in&& punifhments 
 of another kind for refilling to fwear fidelity to him. Antic^* 
 
 I/. CIO. % +. 
 
 H m ade 
 
9 8 The Credibility of the Book It 
 
 made them remarkable. As we have but 
 very few writers of thofe times, efpecially 
 iuch as lived in the provinces 5 it is not to be 
 wondered that we meet with fome lingular 
 phrafes in thofe we have, and which we can- 
 not parallel in any other authors now in 
 our hands. If we had before us the works 
 ot a good number of provincial writers, it is 
 not unlikely, but we might fee fome of 
 them reprefent their nation enrolling them- 
 felvesin a Ccnfus, efpecially inthefirft Cen- 
 fus made in their country, by the taking an 
 oath of Allegiance and Fidelity to the 
 Emperour. I fhall give an inftance from 
 Jofcphus, and which has likewife fome affi- 
 nity with ourfubjed. In the jewijh war he 
 calls Fabatus Cefar's Procurator (a) : In his 
 Antiquities (£) he calls him Cefars fervant. 
 He alio calls one Stephen, who was in 
 J tide a in the time of Cumantts, Cefar's fer- 
 vant. c And {c) at this time, fay s he, fome 
 * who aimed at innovations fet upon Stephen 
 
 a fervant 
 
 (a) Diia-uc, 3 TtoT-hoic, Xfrftu-vrt <&cc3c&tov rev Kuhtu£(&' JWjj- 
 ryjv DeB?ll. lib. I. cap. 2,9. p. 1030. v. 22,. vid. &. v. 29. 
 
 (b) — kwQvflL&tM 3 ''% <bu.pv.Tov Kcu<rcx.c<& j c£Xov Ant'iq, 1 7. 
 cap. ?. p-7f S- v. 6. 
 
 (c) T&JV y> ItytCMIW i'Xi ViCOTSpKTwZ TiVSCj KXT& TW OY)Vj'>GL<t 
 
 fix* 
 
Chap.I. Gospfl History. 99 
 
 ' a fervant of Cefar> in the High- way about 
 4 a hundred Stadia from the city, and robbed 
 ' him of all he had'. I have fhewn above, 
 that Fabatus was ^Aagu Jius s Procurator in 
 the Kingdom of Arabia, if not alfo in 
 J: ica. And that Stephen alfo was Procura- 
 tor in Judea, may be concluded, from the 
 treafure he had with him, and from his being 
 particularly the objed of thefpite of the fe- 
 ditious Jews who were uneafy under the 
 Roman government. So that, with Jofe- 
 phus, the EmpeTottr's fervant and the pro- 
 curator of the Emptrour's revenue were fy- 
 nonymcus terms. If jofephus appears at 
 prefent lingular in this ftiJc, yet I doubt not, 
 but it was at thatt time very common. 
 
 [;.] I apprehend, that though the 
 Jews entered thcmfelves and their eftates in 
 the way of a Roman Cenfus, ye: there was 
 no tribute railed upon it, Which might be 
 the reafon of Jofephus 's reprefenting this 
 affair fimply by taking an oath, rather than 
 by the name of a Cenfus. 
 
 I have now laid before the reader the 
 evidence I have for this fuppofition, that 
 there was a Cenfus made in Judea a little 
 
 Avtiq. 20. cap. 4. j, a. vid. &Je Bdl. p. 1071. v. 3*. 
 
 H 2 before 
 
j oo The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 before the death of Herod. The particulars 
 mentioned by St. Luke, and the expreffions 
 he ufes, are very fuitable to a Cenfus. And 
 the pofture of Herod's affairs about this time 
 incline me to think there was an enrolment, 
 after the manner of a Roman Cenfus, made 
 in his dominions by order of Auguflus. 
 
 But whether I am in the right or not, 
 St. Luke certainly fays, that there was an en- 
 rolment : And Jofephus fays, that the whole 
 jew'ijh nation had taken an oath to be faith- 
 ful to Cefar and Herod. Some entry there- 
 fore mud have been made. And if St. Luke 
 be undcrftood to fpeak only of an en- 
 rolment of names and perfons, his account 
 is confirmed by Jofephus as fully as one 
 could wifh. 
 
 And though it mould be thought, that I 
 have not fully proved, that there was at this 
 time a proper affeflement made in Judea-> 
 yet I have, I think, fhewn undeniably, that 
 about this time that country was brought in- 
 to a very ftrift fubjc&ion to Auguflus: And 
 herein alio St. Luke and Jofephus agree en- 
 tirely. 
 
 I am fenfiblethat they, who have hither- 
 to fuppoied, that Jcfus was not born till a 
 few weeks before the death of Herod, will 
 
 very 
 
Chap.L GospELHisTORy. 101 
 
 very unwillingly allow, that the oath in 
 Jofiphus has any relation to St. Lukes en- 
 rolement. But then, befidc the task of eva- 
 ding all the many concurring circumflanccs 
 in St. Luke and Joflphus, they will labour 
 under one very great difficulty. For this 
 oath appears to have been taken by the 
 Jews fo very near the end of Herod's reign, 
 that it will be utterly inconcciveable, that 
 the Romans fhould have ordered another ge- 
 neral enrolment and harraflethe people again 
 before Herod's death. Nor will they be able 
 to remove this difficulty by faying, that the 
 [wearing began about the time it is placed in 
 by Jofephus, but was not finifhed till a few 
 weeks before Herod died : For it was all 
 over at the time Jofcphus fpeaks of it. All 
 had taken the oath, but fix thoufand Vkari- 
 feesi they had refufed, and were fined. 
 
 J. III. The third objection, is this. Cy* 
 renins was not Governour of Syria till nine 
 or ten, perhaps twelve years after our Saviour 
 was born : therefore St. Luke has made a mi- 
 ftake in faying, that this taxing happened in 
 the time of Cyrenius. 
 
 This objection mud nowbeftatcd more 
 at length. In our trandation the words are : 
 And this taxing was fir ft made when Cy- 
 
 H 3 renins 
 
I o x The Credibility of the Book IL 
 
 renius was governour of Syria. What is 
 the fane of cur tranflation, I donot know : 
 and it muft be owned likewife, that the words 
 of the Original (a) feem to have in them an 
 uncommon ambiguity. Many think, the 
 mod genuine natural tenfe of the original 
 words is : This, firfi taxing (or enrolment) 
 was made when Cyrenins was. governour 
 of Syria. And upon this fenie of them the 
 objection is founded. And it is urged, this 
 cannot be agreeable to the truth. For the 
 Evangel ills have allured us, that Jefus was 
 born in the later end of Herod's reign. But 
 Jofifthvs fays, that {b) Quintilius Varus was 
 then Prcfident of Syria, and he muft have 
 been Co at left a year before Herod died. And 
 Satitrninus was his predccelTor. Moreover 
 Jofeptus fays, that Cyrenins was fent Go- 
 vernour into Syria, when Archelaus was re- 
 moved from his government of Judea, who 
 yet reigned there between nine and ten 
 years after H.rod. Jofephus relates this 
 matter, in his Antiquities, thus. 
 
 ' But in the tenth year (c) of Arche- 
 c laus's government, the chief of the Jews. 
 
 (a) 'Avtv) it bmypapv npaT?, h/ivtro ijysfA,6ȣvovT(&> t7,c Zvsii/A 
 KegpxV {b) Ant. L. 17. cap, v. j, 1. (e) Asxutm 
 
 and 
 
Chap.I. Gospel History. 103 
 
 « and Samaritans not being able to bear his 
 « cruelty and tyranny accufed him to Cefaf. 
 The Emperour fent an officer into Judeaio 
 bring him to Rome. 4 When he came thither? 
 c Cefar, having heard what he had to (ay in 
 
 * anfwer to his accufers, banifhed him, ap- 
 1 pointing Vienna a City in Gaul for the 
 € place of his abode {a). And the country 
 
 * of Archelaus being annexed to the pro- 
 
 < vince of Syria, Cyrenius a Confular perfon 
 
 * was fent by Cefar to make an aflelTement 
 ' in Syria, and to feile Archelaus\ eftate (b)\ 
 
 Afterwards he fays : * In the mean 
 
 * time Cyrenius a Roman Senator, who had 
 
 * ferved all other offices, and through then^ 
 1 arrived at the Confulfhip, and was diftin- 
 
 < guifhed likewife by divers other honours 
 
 * and dignities, came into Syria with a few 
 c troops, being fent thither by Cefar to ad- 
 4 minifter juftice to that people, and to make 
 c an aflelTement of their goods. And Copo- 
 ' nius a perfon of the Equeftrian rank was 
 
 < fent with him to govern in Judea with 
 « fupreme authority. Cyrenius alfo came in- 
 
 < to Judea, now annexed to Syria, both 
 
 (*) Ant. L. £7. C. 15. §. 2. 
 
 *M C4f $PP««j <t u.7TotiN<r'opjtv&' oikoV ibid. §. ^o, 
 
 H 4. to 
 
j 04 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 * to aiTeffe their eftates, and to feife tyirche* 
 < lauss effects and treafure (a)'. 
 
 It is objected therefore, that St. Luke has 
 committed a very grolTe miftake, in faying, 
 that this taxing was made when Cyrenius 
 was govemcur of Syria : Since it appears 
 from ^ofephus, that Cyrenius was not prefi- 
 dent of that province till after the banifh- 
 nient of Archelaus, Herod's /on and fucceflbr. 
 
 T o this I anfwer, that though the fenfe 
 of the words, as they now ftand in St. Luke's 
 Gofpel, fhould be iuppofed inconfiftent with 
 this account taken from Jofepkus > yet it 
 would be unreafonable to conclude, that 
 St. Luke had really made any miftake. 
 St. Luke appears in the reft of his hiftory, and 
 from many particulars of this account before 
 us, to be lb fully matter of the ftate of Judea, 
 and of the nature of this affair he is here 
 fpeakir.g of, that it is impoflible he Thould 
 commit any fuch miftake. 
 
 (et) YLvevvi®" 3, t *;$ vw 6%/viv rrvvcf/ef/jivav &iv«p, too; ts 
 u,Xh&$ &£%<£<> tziTiTz>.ix.&',) V3 a'ta 7ra<rcoy o^tva-xq i>7roc.To$ yzvsc%, 
 
 fcTTiuv, ys/vc-0[/jW6<z 'ixSeueov ry txi 7rZrw ib£<nof ncifw 3 ^ 
 
 feut&okrtc&iiTZvTm WMSiti *m}*)fQ!*s v *i"rec'Ap%iXetif ftf* UiXtoc 1 
 <4ntiq> 58. C.I. §. |. 
 
 ' In 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. Toy 
 
 I n the beginning of his third chapter 
 St. Luke has moft exaftly fpecified the State 
 of all Judea, or the land of Ifrael, as it 
 was in the fifteenth year of Tiberius, by 
 fetting down the feveral Tetrarchs and Go- 
 vernours of it, and the true extent of their 
 territories. 
 
 S t. Luke underftood the nature of enrol- 
 ments, as made by the Romans. The enrol- 
 ment now made, was by virtue of a Decree 
 of Augujlus. And he fays that Jofeph went 
 to be taxed with Mary his efpoufed wife. 
 This was the cuftom of the Romans, as 
 has been fhewn from undoubted teftimonies, 
 to enrole women as well as men, whereas 
 the Jews ufed to number or enrole Males 
 only. 
 
 Moreover, St. Luke appears to be 
 well acquainted with the Cenfus which Jo- 
 ftphus gives us an account of. Gamaliel fays : 
 After this man rofe up Judas of Galilee, tn^fav.w; 
 the days of the taxing and drew away 
 much people after him : he alfo perijhed, 
 and as many as obeyed him, were difperfed. 
 J think it may be fairly fuppofed, that Saint 
 Luke underftood what he has related from 
 Gamaliel. And then, here are particulars 
 enough to fatisfie us, he wanted no infor- 
 mation 
 
j&6 The Credibility of the Boot it 
 
 mation concerning the Cenfus which 'Jofe- 
 jphus fpeaks of. 
 
 That Gamaliel 'here fpeaks of the Cen- 
 fus made in Judea after the banifhrnent of 
 Archelaus is evident, becaufe it was at that 
 time, that Judas of Galilee raifed a diftur- 
 bance. Gamaliel calls them tke days of 
 the taxing, which implies, that this was a 
 very noted and remarkable Period: as it is 
 certain, it was. 
 
 GAMALIEL here calls this Judas 
 by his proper name, Jofephus does in one 
 place call him Judas Gaulanites (a), but 
 he often (tiles him Judas the Galilean, ox of 
 Galilee \b). Gamaliel fays,that he drew away; 
 much people after him. Jofephus fays the 
 fame thing of him in almoft the fame 
 words (c). 
 
 GAMALIEL does cxaftly fpecifiq 
 the time in which this man rofe up, namely 
 in the time of the taxing, or of the enrol- 
 ment 5 for Jofephus fays, ' he perfuaded, 
 1 not a few not to enrolc themlelves, whea 
 
 («) Ant. L. i8. cap. i. pag.792. v. 3. 
 
 (6) 'O rWuA^tos 'lAs p. 974- 3- %$.**$ TxXiXcucr, 
 
 'l%^uq ovoiaoc.' p. 1060. 8. 
 
 (c) 'Eteufypoc, amy wot, 'li^x rzs nturxvTos 'labxiuv vk ©A»y»s 
 
 txipQe? dc B. Jud, L. vii. pag. 1313. v. 4 1 . 
 
 Cme- 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. 107 
 
 ? Cyrenius the Cenfor was fent into 
 f Judea (a). 
 
 GAMALIEL fays he alfo perifhed, 
 and all, even as many as obeyed him, were 
 fcattered. Jofepfjus has no where related 
 particularly the end of this Judas. But that 
 his cnterprize was defeated at that time, we 
 may be certain : otherwife the Roman Go- 
 vernment could not have fubfifted in that 
 country with any quiet, which yet it did 
 for near fixty years after the banifhment of 
 t^Archelaus. Nor is thereafter this any men- 
 tion made, in Jofephus*s hiftory, of any 
 a&ion or attempt of Judas. 
 
 Perhaps it will be here obje&ed, that 
 Gamaliel's words imply, that this defign of 
 Judas was quite confounded, and his prin- 
 ciples funk at once : And yet it feems like- 
 ly from the uneaimeffe which the Jews ex- 
 prefs under the Roman tribute in fome places 
 of the Evangelifts, that his principles were in 
 being long afterwards : And from Jofephus 
 it appears, that his notions were very pre- 
 valent, and were one caufe of their war % 
 laft with the Romans. 
 
 But if any fo underftand Gamaliel, they 
 appear to me very much to miftake the de- 
 
 (a) Ibid. & pag. jyz. init. 
 
 fign 
 
io 8 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 fign of his Argument. Doubtlcfs it was not 
 without fpecial reafon that Gamaliel alleged 
 thefe two inftances. And he fpeaks of each 
 in a very different manner. Of Theudas he 
 fays : He was flain, and all, as many as 
 obeyed him, were fcattered and brought to 
 nought {.PiehvQycTxvy $ iytvovro li$ a/sV] 
 They were ruined and came to nothing. Of 
 Judas he fays : he alfo perijhed, and all, 
 as many as obeyed him were difperfed 
 l^iea-Ko^ia^YiaoLv^]. Having mentioned thefe 
 two inftances, which the councel were well 
 acquainted with, and hereby laid a founda- 
 tion for the advice he propofed to give, he 
 goes on : And now 1 fay unto you, refrain 
 from thefe men, and let them alone : for if 
 this counfel or this work be of men, (as 
 Theudas's was), it will come to (a) nought 
 (as his did.) But if it be of God, ye can- 
 not overthrow it, left haply ye be found 
 even to fight againft God. 
 
 I t is not to be fuppofed, that Gamaliel 
 fhould fay : Judas's defign was of God. 
 However the chief men of the jewijh nation 
 might approve his principles, they were wifer 
 than openly to efpoufe them : they left that 
 to the common people. 
 
 i The 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. IO p 
 
 The force of Gamaliel's argument is this : 
 Theudas and his meafures came to nothing. 
 After him Judas rofe up : He himfelf pe- 
 riled, and his people were difperfed $ but yet 
 his principles prevail. You likewife may 
 now punifh thefe men, and put an end to 
 their lives j but if their principles be of 
 God, they will prevail notwithstanding 5 
 and all the iffue will be, that you will con- 
 trad guilt, fight againfl: God, but in vain. 
 
 A n d to this feems to be owing the great 
 fuccefle of Gamaliel's reafoning, and the 
 iervice he did the Apoftles at this time. He 
 *nfinuates fome hopes, that their defign 
 might be of the fame nature with Judas s» 
 This may be inferred from his way of expref- 
 fmg himfelf: left haply ye be found to fight 
 againft God. This was Judas' s peculiar 
 principle, that they were to own no mortal 
 Lords, but God only (a). And it is not un- 
 likely, that Gamaliel intended hereby to in- 
 fmuate, not only that there was danger of 
 their oppofing a defign which came from 
 God, and of oppofing it with no other 
 effeft, but that of contracting guilt to them- 
 felves y but alfo of oppofing the very King- 
 
 [#) Jofeph pag. 1060. v. 10. 
 
 dora 
 
j io The Credibility of the Boole II, 
 
 dom and government of God which they 
 wifhed to be under. 
 
 I t deferves likewife to be obferved, that 
 Gamaliel mentions Theudas with contempt 
 and indignation. Before ihefe days rofe up 
 Theudas, boafting himfelf to be forne body ; 
 but nothing like this follows the mention of 
 "Judas. 
 
 GAMALIEL concludes upon the 
 whole, that they fhould let ihefe men alone. 
 We have no occafion to meddle in this mat- 
 ter. It is not unlikely but the Romans > our 
 prefent Governours, will be jealous of thefe 
 men. But it feems to me an affair we have 
 noreafonto concern our felves in. 
 
 S t. Luke therefore muft be fuppofed to be 
 well acquainted with the Cenfus made after 
 the banifhment of i^Archelaus. 
 
 I must be permitted to obferve farther, 
 that St. Luke does here call Cyrenius by his 
 true name. It has indeed been a difpute 
 among learned men, whether his Roman 
 name was Quirinus or Quirinhis. Onuphrius 
 in his Fafii printed it Quirinius : Grotius 
 (a) and Lipfius (b) thought Onuphrius 
 was miftaken, and that it ought to be correft- 
 
 (a) In Luc. ii z. {b) In not. gd Tuck. 
 
 Mtw. L. iii. c. 48. 
 
 ed 
 
Chap. I. GospelHistory. hi 
 
 cd Quirinius. (a) Terizonius feems to have 
 proved, that Quirimts is the true way of 
 writing it in Latin : fmce it was not the 
 family name, or the nornen, but cognomen y 
 the third name of this Gentleman. For his 
 name was Cains Sulpicius gtiirinus, and in 
 the Syriac verfion of St. Luke he is written 
 Kttrinus, and in the Latin vulgate Cyrinus. 
 But however that be, he allows it to be com- 
 mon for the Greeks to make fome alteration 
 in the termination of Roman names, when 
 they turn them into their own language. It 
 is certain his name in all the Greek authors 
 has the termination of io<; or his. Strabo (^) 
 and *Dio (c) call him KWnos (Cyrinhis). 
 But in Jofephus {d) his name is always wri- 
 ten, as in St. Luke, Cyrenius. 
 
 Moreover it is certain Cyrenius was 
 Governour of Syria, and he has here a very 
 proper title, by which he muft have been 
 well known in Judea, and in all that part 
 of the world. 
 
 Lastly, if we confider that the words 
 now before us are a parenthesis, and that 
 St. Luke calls the Enrolment or Ccnfus he 
 
 fa) Diflerta. de Auguftea orb. Terr. Defer. §.50. 
 
 (b) Lib. 11. p. 85-4. 
 
 (c) Vid. Bio. lib. $4. ad A.U. 741. 
 
 (J) P. 791- v. s, 11. p. -94. v,:i, 17j & u. 
 
 S was 
 
1 1 x The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 was fpeaking of, the firft, we cannot well 
 doubt, but that the original intention of 
 them was, in fome manner or other, to dw 
 ftinguifh this enrolment, which was now 
 made in the reign of Herod, from that, 
 which was afterwards made when t^Arche* 
 laus was banifhed. 
 
 H e that will ferioufly confider all thefc 
 particulars, will have no fufpicions, that 
 St. Luke has made any miftake. 
 
 I f then the fenfe, which is now ordina- 
 rily given thefe words, is not confiftent 
 with truth, it is highly reafonable to con- 
 clude, that either we do not take the true 
 meaning of them, or elfe that fome fmall 
 alteration or other has happened in the text 
 of St. Luke. 
 
 $. IV. But though what has been here 
 offered, and which has alfo been in the main 
 alleged before by thole who have considered 
 this place, be fufficient to take away the force 
 of this obje&ion ; yet, I prefume, it will 
 be expe&ed, I fhould give fome account of 
 the particular Solutions that have been offered 
 by learned men. 
 
 I shall therefore briefly mention fome 
 which appear to me lefs probable, and then 
 rcprefent fome others more diflindly, and 
 
 at 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. 115 
 
 at laft endeavour to fupport or emprove that 
 which appears to me thefaireft. 
 
 i. O n e Solution propofed by (a) Cal- 
 vin, and much approved by Salmeron and 
 Baronius, is that Jofephus was miftakcn in 
 the account which he has given of Cyrenhts. 
 The two laft mentioned writers efpecially are 
 of opinion, that we need pay little regard to 
 jofephus^ whofe hiftory, they fay, abounds 
 with miftakes and falfhoods (£). And Baro- 
 nius (c) has taken fome pains to make out 
 a new feries of the fucceffion of the Gover- 
 nors of Syria about this time. For he 
 thinks, that Cyrenius was twice, if not thrice, 
 prefident of Syria. But this project can be 
 but little approved by learned men at prefent. 
 No one that reads Jofephus without prejudice, 
 and that confiders he had before him the hi- 
 ftory of Herod's reign writ by Nicolas of 
 ^Damafcus^ who was a learned man, Herod's 
 favourite, and employed by him in affairs of 
 Government, can make any doubt, but that 
 
 {a) In loc. 
 
 (b) Praeftat ut Jofephi verd fidem & hiftoriam deferamus, 
 tanquara incertam, 8c fluctuantem 8c vcritati in multis diflen^ 
 tientem. Salmeron in Evang. T. iii. Tra&at. 52. 
 
 (r) Sicque contra Jofephi delin'3 certo apparerer, fub Au- 
 gufto imperatore, vivente Herode feniore, reperiri duplicem 
 immo triplicem Quirinii in Syria praefecluram. Baron. Ann, 
 An. D. 3. Vid, 8; app. ad Ann. num. 80— Stf. 
 
 I ®uin- 
 
H4 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 ^uintilius Varus was Governour of Syria 
 when Herod died 5 that (7. Sentius Satur- 
 ninus was his predeceflor, and was in the pro- 
 vince at left two or three years ; and that 
 M. Titius was prefident before him. With 
 all thefe Governours of Syria Herod had 
 fome concerns. What Jofephus has faid of 
 them may likewife be confirmed in a great 
 meafure from other Authors (a). So that 
 there is no room for Cyrenius at this time. 
 Nor can there well be any queftion made, 
 but that Jofephus has given us, in the main? 
 a true account of the enrolment or CenfuS 
 made by Cyrenius after Archelaus's banifh- 
 ment. It appears from the manner, in which 
 Gamaliel fpeaks of the Taxing when Judas 
 of Galilee rofe up, that this was a remark- 
 able event. And the account Jofephus gives 
 Of it may aflure us, this was an affair all men 
 were then well acquainted with. The dr 
 fturbance raifed by Judas was fupprefled, 
 but yet the principle fubfifted. It was the 
 occafion of much uneafinefle under the 
 Roman Government, and many were at 
 times puniflied on account of it {b). 
 
 (a) Vid. Norif. Cenot. Pif. DifT. ii. cap. 16. §.9. 10. 
 
 (b) Jof. Ant, L. 18. cap. 1 . §. 6. 
 
 %. Another 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. 115* 
 
 2. Another Solution propofed by 
 Calvin (a), and which Valefms (£) judges 
 to be the moft commodious of any, is, that 
 the Decree of ijtuguftiis v is iffued in the 
 later end of Heroes reign 5 but that for fome 
 reafon or other the Cenfus could not be 
 made, or at left nor finifhed till the time 
 that Cyrenius was Governour of Syria, ten 
 or twelve years afterwards. 
 
 But this is to make St. Lukefpezk very 
 improperly and confufedly, in what he fays 
 of Cyrnius. And it is dire&Iy contrary to 
 what follows. Having related, that there 
 went out a decree from Cefar Auguftus, that 
 all the world jhould be taxed, he fubjoins: 
 and all went to be taxed every one in his 
 own City. And there was fo great a refort 
 at this time at Bethlehem upon this account, 
 that Jofeph and Mary were obliged to take 
 up with very indifferent accommodations : 
 There was no room for them in the inn. 
 
 3. Some think that inftead of Cyrenius, 
 we ought to read Saturninus ; becaufe , 
 according to Jofephus, he was Prefed of 
 Syria, within a year or two before Herod 
 died 5 and Tertiillian fays this Cenfus was 
 
 (a) Ubi fupra. (b) Vid. Notas ad Eufib. Hill. 
 
 Ec. Lib. 1. cap. v, 
 
 I 2 made 
 
1 1 6 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 made by him. This is one of the Solutions 
 propofed by (a) Valejius, though he rather 
 approves that laft mentioned. But againft 
 this, it has been obferved by many learned 
 men, that Cyrenius is in all our Copies of 
 St. Luke, and appears to have been there 
 before Tertullians time ; fince Juftin Mar- 
 tyr fays exprefly, that this Cenfus was made 
 by Cyrenius. 
 
 4. Other learned (b) men have thought 
 it a very eafy and probable conjc&ure, that 
 originally the name in St. Luke was Quin- 
 tilius. Quintilius Varus fucceeded Satur- 
 ninus, and was in the Province of Syria, 
 when Herod died. The Cenfus afterward 
 made by Cyrenius was certainly beft known> 
 and fome ignorant tranfcriber might therefore 
 imagine Quintilius a miftake, and pretend 
 to corre£ the original by inferting Cyrenius 
 in his room. Befides, the alteration of 
 Quintilius to Cyrenius, is a change of only 
 a few (c) letters, and therefore might the 
 more eafily happen. 
 
 But this Solution is liable to the fame 
 obje&ion with the former, viz. that Cy- 
 
 (*) Ubi fupra. (h) Huet. Dem. Evang.Prop.ix. 
 
 cap. x, Parker Demonft. of the truth of the Chrift. Religion, 
 p. z 1 9, 4to. 1 6 8 1 . (c) KvYvrAiV, Kvpwis* 
 
 renin* 
 
Chap.I. Gospel History. 117 
 
 renins is in all the Copies of the Greek ori- 
 ginal, and in all the ancient verfions. And 
 befides, has this difadvantage, that this Cen- 
 lus St.L^fpeaksof is not afcribed to Quiw 
 tilius Varus by any ancient Chriltian writer 
 whatever, whereas Saturninus has been men- 
 tioned by Tertullian. 
 
 The reader is to judge for himfelf, but 
 there are fome other (a) Solutions which 
 feem to me more probable, and to deferve 
 a more particular confederation. 
 
 5. The next I (hall mention is that of- 
 fered by (b) Mr. Whifton^ which is this > 
 
 * that aDefcription or enrolment of the Jews 
 4 was made juft before our Saviour's birth, 
 € but the Tax it felt was not raifed till the 
 c banifhment of Archelaus when Cyrenhts 
 1 was Governour of Syria : And Dr. 'Pri- 
 deaux feems to approve of this way of fol- 
 ving this difficulty. For he fays : c If the 
 c fecond verfe of the 2d. chapter of Saint 
 c Luke, be fo rendered as to imply that the 
 , levying the Tax according to the Defcrip- 
 
 * tion mentioned in the former verfe, was 
 € firft executed, while Cyrenius was Gover* 
 
 (a) I have pafiedby the conjecture of thofe who havefup. 
 pofed this whoe parenthefis to be an interpolation, as not de- 
 serving to be mentioned. (6) A ihortview of the 
 Harm, of the Evangelifts Prop. xi. 
 
 I 3 l nour 
 
1 8 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 « nour of Syria, this will remove all diffi- 
 
 * culties. And the Text can well beat this 
 c interpretation [a). 
 
 In order to fupport this interpretation, 
 Mr. Whifton (ays (Jf). c The word ufed for 
 
 * the Defcription at our Saviour's birth is the 
 ' Verb aVo^^apOjxoi 5 and that ufed for the 
 
 * taxation under Cyrenius 7 is the noun 
 c a-woypatpfi' He adds, that by cuftom a 
 € noun of the fame original with a verb does 
 c vary in fignification from it. Teo^erpeTv 
 c is to meaiure the earth : Teofs-ST^ict, is Geo- 
 1 metry 5 or the Science that confifts of the 
 c knowledge of numbers and figures. 
 
 * Nay in Englifh^ in the words dire&ly ap- 
 
 * polite to this matter, the verb to tax is 
 
 * oftentimes to lay an imputation, while the 
 
 * noun a Tax is the levy of money only/ 
 
 But (i .) Mr. IV- ns Argument from 
 
 the ufe of nouns and verbs is not valid here. 
 He fays, ' by cuftom a noun of the fame 
 
 * original with a verb does vary in fignifica- 
 
 * tk>n from it'. This may be, and there may 
 be many inftances of it. But it had been 
 much more material to give an example or 
 two of the ufe of the noun aVoy^xpJ for 
 
 {a) Connex. Part. ii. lib.ix. Anno ante ch. v, 
 ib) Ubi fupra. 
 
 a Tax 
 
Chap.I Gospel History. 119 
 
 a Tax, namely in the fenfe in which he 
 here underftands it. This he has not done, 
 and I prefume no iuch example can be al- 
 leged from any Greek author. 
 
 I know of but two or at the mod: three 
 Senfes in which this noun is ufed, which can 
 have any relation to this matter. 
 
 [1.] It is u(ed for the ad of the peo- 
 ple in prcfenting themfelves to be enrol- 
 led. As when Soldiers offered themfelves to 
 be inlifted (a) or enrolled under a General. 
 And in aCenfus it may be ufed for the ad of 
 the people who come and offer themfelves 
 to be enrolled and afieffed. So the word 
 feems to be ufed by Jofephus, when he fays 
 in the place above quoted that Judas per- 
 fwaded not a few (b) of the Jews not to 
 make enrolments or entries , that is, not to 
 offer themfelves to be entered and ailefied. 
 
 [2.] The word is ufed for a Cenfus. 
 So it is ufed by TDio in many places : 
 aiffQyeaLf.a$ inoiiicrbcti is the fame as cenfum 
 agerej that is, to make enrolments, is the 
 iame as to make a Cenfus (Y). 
 
 [3.] This 
 
 (a) See above, p. ^6. n. b. (b) 'Eteecfytpos tizzyevot 
 
 'laotx. t£ 7rt t<roivTo$ 'laoot'iav »x oMyac, ^ 7rcn7<>% tolc, '&brt>y paty x$. 
 de B. Jud. L. vii. p. 131?. 40. (0 nA^ lv tc/S; ^ra- 
 
 7f'«^e6~5j P- ^09. C. kvjoi ^ lazyputpsts T ov tvj 'l7«A<Jtf x«Te<_ 
 
 I ^ X.»VT(S'» 
 
no The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 [3.] This noun is ufed for the public 
 Rolls or Court Books, in which the entries 
 were made : This Senfe of the word is very 
 common. Thus Caligula being at play at 
 Dice, and having loft all his money, he 
 asked for the Gallic court Rolls (a), and 
 ordered feveral of the mod wealthy of that 
 people to be put to death, and feifed their 
 cafh. And the Citizens of Rome, whofe 
 debts were more than they could difcharge, 
 having entered the fums they owed in Books 
 opened for that purpofe, Servius Tullius> 
 took the Books or Rolls, [t^s di*rQypcL$d$ 
 fAa£s] brought them into the Forum, and 
 paid the Creditors (b). 
 
 Thus I have reckoned up all the Senfes 
 I know of this noun, relating to this matter. 
 However it never fignifies a Tax. Taxes 
 were paid according to the Cenfus where any 
 had been made. But they were no part of 
 it. They might be remitted, or demanded. 
 And the tribute is never expreffed by the noun 
 diroypcL^ but is ever diftinguifhed from 
 what that fignifies. (2.) This 
 
 xivrm ixoivxrccTo' 5 5-7. B. vid. etiam jam citat. pag. 496. C, 
 fo9. B. C.See above p. 119. 
 
 (#) Kvfitvw 'j naze *£ fjuuQav or 1 %k, un ot oLgyvptov, jjrjjo-s rs 
 t#s *r TccXxtZv 'bbny^u.Quc, x. r. A. Dio. L. j"9- p. 6tf» B. 
 
 (b) Dion. Hal, L.iv. cap. 10. p. 107. 13. 
 
 (c) Tev rs (pipov rov c/jc t tenygeityw affiles, nM ri nysc 
 nxTtXvirt Dio, L.4.9. pag. 401. B. 
 
Chap.I. Gospel History, ju 
 
 f2.) This interpretation ofthefe words 
 is contrary to matter of faft. There was no 
 Tax levyed after the banifhment of Arche- 
 laus according to the Enrolment made at the 
 birth of our Saviour. But as foon as Ar- 
 chelaus was banifhed, c Cyrenius came into 
 * Judeato make an afieflement of their goods. 3 
 Jofephus is as exprefs in this matter as can 
 be (a). Then it was that Judas of Galilee 
 and his followers c exclaimed that an afleffe- 
 c ment would bring in among them down- 
 < right flavery(^) 5 . 
 
 This interpretation therefore is fo far 
 from being of any fervice to us, that it would 
 introduce a new, and, 1 think, infuperable 
 difficulty, by putting upon thefe words a 
 fenfe dire&ly contrary to what Jofephus has 
 faid. 
 
 JOSE? HUS is fo exprefs, that there 
 feems no need of reafoning upon the matter 
 to confute this fuppofition. But I can never 
 conceive, how a Tax could be levyed in 
 Judea^ after the removal of ^4rchelaus, upon. 
 the Cenfus or enrolment made at our Saviour's 
 birth, without the utmoft confufion or the 
 
 (a) TlxeZv j y^ Kuf*i*vio$ it$ t7,v 'laaet7</,v twnTifju?i<ro{jtjtvo$ re 
 uvtuvtUc, hrU? Ant. L. i8.c. i- (b) Tw ts ^rer^jjo-** 
 
 £<Jiv <x,?&o n xvTixfvc Pxtiiciv inKpifi.v Xtyrrtf Id. ibid. 
 
 utmoft 
 
I ix The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 utmoft injuftice. When the Enrolment 
 which St. Z,#/b fpeaks of was made, Galilee, 
 Trachonitis, and other countries were fub- 
 je£fc to Herod, befide Judea: many who 
 lived in Galilee enrolled themfelves in Judea 
 particularly Jofeph, as St. Luke aflures us. 
 But when ^Archelaus was banifhed, one half 
 of Herod's Dominions was in the poiTeffion 
 of Herod the Tetrarch and Philip, and had 
 been fo ever fince the death of Herod called 
 the Great. And only Judea, Samaria and 
 Idumea, which had been fubjeft to Arche. 
 laus, were thrown into the form of a Ro- 
 man Province. The Jews having enrolled 
 themfelves according to their families at the 
 time of our Saviour's nativity, and many 
 having come into Judea properly fo called 
 from Galilee and other parts of Herod s ter- 
 ritories, a new enrolment was abfolutely 
 neceffary in 'Judea at the time of Arche- 
 laus's removal, if they were to pay tribute 
 there in the way of a Cenlus. Judea, other- 
 wife, muft have been very much over- bur- 
 dened. If there was an afleffement of goods 
 made at the latter end of Herod s reign, un- 
 doubtedly Jofeph's ftock at Nazareth was 
 entered and rated at Bethlehem. And as 
 the Jews in that part of the world were 
 
 chiefly 
 
Chap.I. Gospel History. 113 
 
 chiefly of the tribes of Judah and Benja- 
 min^ the inhabitants of Galilee, and Tra* 
 chonitis, &c. muft have very generally en- 
 rolled themfelves in towns that belonged to 
 the province of Judea. But it would have 
 been very unreafonable in the Romans to de- 
 mand tribute of the people of Judea, pro- 
 perly fo called, for eftates and goods which 
 were in the territories of the Tetrarchs Herod 
 and Tki/ip. 
 
 And we are allured, that the Romans 
 did ufe to ad equitably and with great ex- 
 a&neffe in thefe matters. Many of the Ro- 
 man Citizens had been for a long timeop- 
 prefled with the weight of their debts. Away 
 having been found out A, U. 402, to give 
 them eafe, Livie fays, that the next year a 
 Cenlus was ordered, becaufe the property of 
 many things had been altered (a). 
 
 6. The Solution I fhall confider in the 
 next place, is that, which wasfirft offered by 
 Heruoaert (b). I give it here in the words 
 
 (a) Quia Solutio aeris alieni multarum rerum mutaverat do- 
 mir.os; cenium agi placuit. lib. 7. cap. zz. n. 6.vid & c. zi. 
 
 (if) Uc hoc loco genhivus nytfMnverroi vocsbuio npa-r) ad- 
 ditus, vim compaction's efficiat, 6c perinde fit, ac fi diceretur 
 defcriptionem illam eiTe priorem, priufque fa6tam,qu:im Quiri- 
 nius Syriae pracficeretur, praefe&uramque ipfius gcreret. Her- 
 TBoaert nova &. vera Chronologa Monachii 1611. p. 189. 
 
 of 
 
1 24 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 of (a) DoCtotlVhitbyhy whomitisefpoufed. 
 f^And this taxing was firft made f before 
 that made) when Cyrcnius was Governow 
 of Syria. The leraned Kepler (£) approved 
 of this interpretation as perfe&ly agreeable to 
 the genius of the Greek language. Not- 
 withftanding this (V) Cafaubon reje&ed it, 
 and was fuppofed by moft to have con- 
 futed Herwaert's arguments for it. Peri- 
 z>onius in his difiertation upon this Subje&of 
 the Taxing has afrefh fupported this inter- 
 pretation. Monfieur Le Clerc in his additi- 
 ons to Dr. Hammond % annotations exprefles 
 his approbation of it: and has fince declared 
 (d) that he thinks it has been fet in fo clear 
 a light as to be inconteftable. And it is 
 now embraced by many other learned men 
 both Proteftants and Catholics. 
 
 I a m very defirous, this Solution fhould 
 appear here to as much advantage as an ar- 
 gument fo full of Greek criticifms can do in 
 
 (a) Tn ioc. (£) Cum igitur omnium Graecc do&o- 
 
 rum judicio conftet fie optimeverfum efTe hunc locum Lucae, 
 multoque emendatius quam habet antiqua verfio, fpero omnes 
 acquieturos hac Solutione obje&ionis prius propofitae. J>e 
 Natal. J. Chr. p. 116, 117. (c) Zxerc. in Bzron. 
 
 i. n. 33. (J) Ce denombnmn,t fe fit avant que J^ulri^ 
 
 whs fut goHvemenr de la Syrie. Des Savans hommes ont mis, 
 cette explication dece paflage de St. Luc dans un fi grand jou? 
 qu'eJle paroit defTormais inconteftable. Nottv* Teflam. 
 
 a defign 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History, nj 
 
 a defign of this nature in our own language. 
 Teri'zonius allows, that a great many of 
 Rerwaerfs inftances are not to the purpofe. 
 And Mr. Le Clerc has in his writings more 
 than once referred to Perizonius's treatife 
 for the proofs of this interpretation. I 
 reckon therefore, that it will be fufficient 
 to reprefent this argument, as it is drawn 
 up by Dr. Whitby zndPerizonius : efpecially 
 if I take in by the by an inftance or two, 
 infifted on by others, though neglected by 
 them. 
 
 Doctor Whitby fays c I dare not allow 
 
 * of the boldnefs of thofe Critickswho for 
 
 * Ku^Wh read YLvwtlXiv I would rather 
 
 c read 7rpo tve, than itpafrrn— — But neither 
 c do we need this criticifm, fince the words 
 ' irp£r@* and Trpirep®* are by the Seventy 
 < oft ufed according to this fenfe ; of the 
 € word irporepovj this is beyond doubt, God 
 
 ' faying twice ams%\£ <r<pYiiLici$ isr&0Tlpa<; cry? 
 
 I will fend hornets before thee \ Exod. xxiii. 
 
 * is. Jof. xxiv. 12. That irp&t©" alfo is 
 
 1 ufed in the fenfe of priority, we learn 
 ' from thefe inftances Tr^riroK©* eyd v 
 av, I am before thee, I am elder than thou- 
 c $ Ivcl ti hk IXoylobm o \iy@* j%« <urp<£T(§k ; 
 J Chal. h KRVDIQ, Why then was not 
 
 the 
 
i%6 The Credibility of the Book II- 
 
 * the word firfi fpoken to me ? Cur mihi non 
 1 annunciatum eft priori? 2 Sam. xix. 43. 
 
 * Ifa. lxv. i<5. The former troubles are for- 
 1 gotten, Gr. liriTwaovicLi rrw 6a/4 iv ayTWI ' 
 1 T7)v 7Ti?'jTvv, and ver. 17. £ ^v jLtvm^oSai 
 1 t<£v TTpoTg^wy, they Jhall not remembe r 
 1 the former* So Johni, 15.30. or* Tr^wTOS 
 c jx» 3?, /J?r #* ^^J fe/wv ^^, and chap. 15. 
 1 18. know that they hated iy.1 tv^utqv, 
 1 me before you, 1 Cor. xiv. 30. irpdor©^ 
 c Let the former hold his peace 5 and 1 Job. 
 c 4. 19. /^£ /<?w #/';#, Sti tt-^'t©*, be. 
 * caufc he loved us before 5 and in Arifto- 
 c phanes, d\*? &*. av ir*o t£ is interpreted, 
 c aAA 5 ax dv TieOTepov, Neph.p. 122. And 
 
 * fo Theophylaff interprets the word here. 
 
 * TvTegnr porigoi YiyejuonuovT©*) hyvv r urponpov 
 c 7i riyiuiovsve Trig ^v^icl$ K.vpvvt@J, 
 
 PERIZONIUS underftands thefe 
 words in the fame fenfe (a) with the Do- 
 dor, only he differs from him and Her. 
 waert , in that they fuppofe irpoSrvi to 
 be the fame as %pqtI*x, whereas he fays 
 
 (a) Verus itique rrua fcntentia verborum fenfus eft: Hate 
 dejcnptio prius, vel, ante, faftx eft, quam prae/ideret Syria 9 
 Qhiirtnus. Differ tatio de Auguftea or bis terrarum Defer ip- 
 tione, §. xxi. 
 
 thefe 
 
Chap. I. GospelHistory. 117 
 
 thefe numeral adjedtives have the force of ad- 
 verbs (a). 
 
 H e alleges divers of the fame examples 
 which the Doftor does, particularly John i. 
 1 5, and xv. 18. Of the later, St! fy*« Trg£rw 
 v(jlo)v /uLejubiiyii, he fays, itmuQbyall means 
 be underftood (b) of priority of time : It 
 hated me before it hated you. 
 
 H e fuppofes alfo (c) that we have a par- 
 rellelinftance in a word of an oppofite mean- 
 ing, 2 Mace, vii.41. e%a,T<i t£v viqSv fi fJinrn^ 
 iTeAluTnvt' Laft of all after the Jons the 
 mother died. In the fame manner is it*utcv 
 
 {a) Voluit autem Herwartus 7rponrr, poni uvri § Trporspx, 
 atque hujas locurionis vi, genitivum, qui fequitur, a ra> v-pair*, 
 tarquam a comparative*, regi. Durum hoc plcrifque vifum. 
 Ego rem aliter expediendam omnino cenfeam. Uparri fimpli- 
 cirer, ut adjec'livum numeraie jungitur verbo, quemadmodum 
 folent adjetliva habitum vcl modum rei geftac iignificantis, 
 
 tanquam fi fint adverbia Sic plane crpZr(^ y verbis adjun- 
 
 <5fcum, faepe fignificat fotam ordinis & numeri rationem, 
 line difcrimine, plurefne fint, an unus, qui fequantur; atque 
 adeo rune non tarn fuperlativi, quam pofitivi naturam induit* 
 eandemque fubit conftru&ionsm, qaam JW«pa$ 6c feqq. Pati 
 hoc naturam rei fignificatae evidens ex lingua Hebraica, ubi» ut 
 conftat, eodem vocabulo ]1t£>V-| prior & primus, "IRH primus 
 & unus, promifcue fignificantur. Pofitivi autem naturam vere 
 quafi induere aliquando to npeoTcs apud Graecos, vel inde coili- 
 gas, quod ex eo formatum fuerit aliud p'ane fuperlativum 
 xpaTiros id quod non fuifTet opus, fi ferrper iftlus gradus vim 
 retincret a-p«T«$- ibid. §. xxii. (b) Vertendum omnino 
 
 cum fignificatu temporis, me primum ante vosibid.& §. xxiii. 
 
 (e) Ibid, 
 
 the 
 
ia8 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 the adverb ufed in Ariftophanes in avibus 
 p. m. 564. de Gallo 5 ?^%e Tg tt^mtov A^g/« 
 x) tAtyaGufy, i. e. imperabatque Per/is priuf- 
 quam T>arius & Megabyzus. 
 
 PERIZON1US fays, that the ge- 
 nitives that follow Tr^ceror are governed by 
 an Ellipfis (b) 7 and that tt^tqs /uv, is the 
 fame as irpoorog irpo /utov, itzplos v/ulmv the fame 
 as TTgcaTot; TTfd tfytcSV Thus in Z>«^ xi. 38* 
 
 (/») Ibid. 
 
 (£) !Ig» enim efle particulam, quae in ifta locutione defide- 
 ratur, 8c a qua regitur genitivus, certiflimum ex eo, quod ubi 
 ellipfis nulla, 8c fententia plene ac integre exponitur, ilia potif- 
 fimum occurrit exprefla. Apud Anton. Liberalem fab. Z9I 
 K»l npo ' HpootXiXs tyry 6ux<ri TuXttfouh Trpary Galinthias ibi 
 optime dicitur merita fulfil* de Hercule, 8c idcirco Thebanos in 
 fefio Herculis facrificare Gahnthiadi pr'ms , feu primae, ante 
 
 Herculem Sed 8c ipfe Lucas Evang. xi.38.exprefiit fimi- 
 
 liter to 5rpo poft %t>aroe; 3 <bct,pi<rou < &') inquit, ifrw iduvfjuxa-sv* 
 en a xpaTov I^svxticH xfo ugirv quod non primum fe laverit, 
 antequam ciburn fumeret. Vides utrobique poft xparn 8c 
 srpSrov ante genitivum expreflfam hanc praepofitionem ; quod 
 certo eft indicio, ab ea etiam regi, quando nulla comparet, 
 omifia per s^u^iv, fed tamen intelligenda: atque adeo expli- 
 candum etiam npwrov Austin, quafi didtum eflet ^urov 7rpb 
 Accent' *s twy^aipvi nyum Kvpnvus, quafi ^cortj Trpb Kvpwiif 
 
 §. xxv.- mihique idem eft, ac ii dixilTet Lucas, non quidem 
 
 mortcct, iiyo[/jovivovTos> verum 7rgoorn ngo yiyti/jwivovToe,-— — J 
 Sed nihil fimilius, quod ad conftruttionis 8c linguae rationem* 
 Lucae verbis fecundum noftram eorum inter pretationem, quam 
 locus Lxx. Interpretum Jeretn. xxix. i.xtoi 61 Xoyot, fearer- 
 &X&* Ugsyjtx$ it$ BafivXcZvx vrspov efyxQwros 'U^ovlisl^ 'Lipxa-ccXtiyi*' 
 Haec funt verba, quae mifit, vel fcripfit Jeremias Babylonem, 
 poftquam exiit Jechonias ex Hierofolymis §. xxviii. 
 
 He 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. 129 
 
 He wondered, [on 8 vs-poHrou e/SxTr-na-flw 7rpo 
 i?f /r«] th&t I° e had n °t wafted before din- 
 ner. From this and another fuch inftance 
 he concludes, that the genitive is governed 
 by 7T£o undcrftood, when it is wanting. 
 
 This is the fubftanceof the argument in 
 favour of this meaning of this paflage of 
 St. Luke. 
 
 I t has been thought by fome to be an 
 objection againft this folution, that then Saint 
 has omitted to name the perlbn by whom 
 this enrolment was made. But methinks 
 this is a defect which may bedifpenfed with. 
 This interpretation anfwers very well what 
 feems to be the main intention of this pa- 
 renthefis, namely, to diftinguifli the enrol, 
 ment now made from that which was made 
 afterward. And if the words will bear this 
 fenfe, I mould think that moft perfons would 
 acquiefce in it. For my own part, I dare not 
 abfolutely re j eft it : but yet I am not fully 
 fatisfied, that this fenfe can be fairly put up- 
 on the words. I think my felf obliged to 
 review the arguments here offered by thefe 
 learned men, and hope it may be done 
 without ofFenfe. 
 
 K I SHAfcfc 
 
1 3 o The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 I shall therefore make fome remarks 
 upon Do&or Whitby and Teriz,onhi$ y and 
 confider likewife fome other examples, o- 
 mitted by them, upon which fome others 
 have laid a great ftretle. 
 
 Doctor IVhitbfs inftances of the ufe 
 of irepTseps and i^orepov from the Seventy 
 are not to the point, becaufe the word in 
 St. Luke is Tr^w'-n?. There is no doubt, but 
 7rpoTg£©., the comparative, is very often fol- 
 lowed by a genitive cafe, and denotes fuch 
 or iuch a thing to be before another. We 
 want fome plain examples of this uie of 
 
 IfPcSj^k' NOL* iS 7TpQDTCT0JC©* eyoo 71 GV tO 
 
 the point, becaufe the 7) is wanting in Saint 
 Luke, and the conflru&ion is different. 
 The example from IfaAxv. 16. only proves 
 that 7rpT©« fignifies the former : and tho* 
 Trp'Jm in St. Luke fhould be fo rendered, the 
 difficulty will remain in its full force. For, 
 then the fenfe will be; This former taxing 
 was made, ^fowCyrenius was govemour of 
 Syria. Nor can the 7T£wt©' in 1 Cor. xiv # 
 30. or 1 John iv. 19. do us any fervice, for 
 want of a regimen equivalent to what we 
 have in our text. Nor do I fee what ufe can be 
 made of the phrafe borrowed from Arifio- 
 fhanes. The pafiagefrpm 2 Sam. 19. 43> 
 
 as 
 
Chap J. Gospel History. 131 
 
 as it is quoted by Keuchen'ms (V), feems 
 to me more ftrongly ro fupport this inter- 
 pretation, than as it is quoted by the Doctor. 
 Though, I fuppofc, the Do&or had his rea- 
 fbns for quoting it in that way. Nor has 
 Terizonius quoted this text, though he had 
 Keuchen'ms before him. It is obfervable, 
 that'll is wanting in (b) Grabe's edition 
 of the Septuagint, as there is nothing an- 
 fwerable to it in the Hebrew. The inllances 
 from St. John's Gofpel will be distinctly con- 
 sidered by and by. 
 
 TERIZO NIUS l§. 22.] is con- 
 cerned to (hew that tt^t@^ is not always 
 fuperlative, but iome times only pofitive. 
 But I cannot perceive the force of his ar- 
 guments. Becaufe the Hebrews have ufcd 
 fome of their Numerals in this manner, does 
 it follow that the Greeks did > Is it any 
 proof that the Englijh fay Henry Seven, be- 
 
 (x) Silentio tandem praeterire nequeo quod i Sam, cap. 19. 
 43. legitur, Et -vtr Ifraelis refpondit viro Judae, & dixit, n»\h* 
 fitnt decern partes hi rege, ubi Lxx. de fuo addere videntur. j£ 
 7rgei>TOTox(&' sy« vi ao, fa etiam in Divide ego prae te: cur 
 igitur me viltbendtfti, fa noa fuit -verbum meum primum fett prius 
 (inter duos enim leimo eft)mthi ■areducendum regem meum} 
 quod Lxx. vertunt, ?£ sx iAcyia-Sn A*ye« /ah nearis y j0 i £ 
 ladct, ixisyl-<l>cci rov fia,<riXLcc lyjol$ ubi yrgSrot £ 'lis Jet manitefte 
 poriicur pro xporsfoc,' Petri Keuchen: annot. in loc. (6) K«» 
 
 K 2 caufc 
 
l^r The Credibility of the BookIL 
 
 caufe the French fay Louts guatorze ? And 
 then for the other argument, that Tip^Ves zj 
 tfi /V se^r* ^ pofitive , becaufe ^p^'-ng^ 
 is formed from it : The Caie, I think is 
 this 5 Trpc has two or three fuperlatives : 
 and if <Perizonius would prove itpvToq to be 
 a pofitive, he mud produce tome example 
 in which it is to ufed. 
 
 The firft quotation in *Perizonius[§. 23 ] 
 which I (hall confidcr isjohnxx. 3, 4. P^/^r 
 therefore went forth, and that other dif- 
 ciple, and cayne to the Sepulchre. So they 
 ran both together, and the other difcipledtd 
 outrun Peter [^ 3X8* ir^Sroc, uc, to ^vnyatov] 
 and came firft to the Sepulchre. Which 
 'Perizowus would render thus : and came 
 firft, viz. before Teter j and fays that the 
 meaning cannot be came firft of all [ir^Sios 
 itdvlw~] becaufe Mary Magdalene had 
 been there before. No, for certain, it is 
 not, came firft of all, becaufe two only 
 are here fpoken of 5 and omnium primus 
 is not properly faid of two. But I wonder 
 Verizonius did not perceive the proper ellip- 
 lis in this place, and which is very obvious, 
 nanaely, toiv SWv, and came the firft of 
 the two. Verizonius does not deny, that 
 vpSim is ufed, where two only are fpoken 
 
 of i 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. 133 
 of 5 nay, he con tends for it. But becaufe it is 
 generally denied (a), and becaufe his proofs 
 appear to me not very clear, or at left not 
 fo fully to (bit my interpretation of this 
 text, I mall give two undoubted examples. 
 Thus (i) c DionyJitts fays, that Servius Tut- 
 lius's wife was daughter of Tarquin the 
 firjl'> though there were but two Tar quins 
 Kings of Rome. Tlutarch thus dr (cribes 
 a reftlefs uneafy mind. * If he is a native of 
 4 a province, of Galatia for inftance, or Bi- 
 1 thjnia 5 He thinks he is not well ufed, if 
 1 he has not fome eminent poft among his 
 « Citizens. If he has that, he laments that 
 * he has not a right of wearing the Tatri- 
 1 cian habit : If he has that, he grieves that 
 
 < he is not a Roman Praetor : If he is 
 ' Praetor, that he is not Conful ; and if 
 c Conful, that he was not declared firft, but 
 
 < (c) only the latter (of the two/. 
 
 (a) T\£uro<, 7§ tfporspoq JiotQtgti' xpSrcs y> In] TrcXXeZy, Tr^npoi 
 ^, *7r\ JVo* Ammon. de Sim. & Dijf. (b) Tupuwix 
 
 6vyu7ijp *<rx "S n%ooT* (sct<riXiu$- Dioryf. Hal. Antiq. p. 2. 34. 
 V. 1 3. confer, p. 1/0. v. 41. oti TxpKvviu & xpoTipov fix<riXtv<rxv- 
 T«>s 'PufAiXim ethxtyx kmc, nt* & p. 2 J"3. 10. ? ftpoTtpov Qcca-iXiuq 
 Txpxvvirs (byocTvp' (c) 'E-xv j Xj rpxrvyaJv, on ft* 
 
 V.TXTiVW >£ VTTXTi'JUV CTl ft/) Tffft/TOS, *,?&' VS~t{*$ CS^yeilVfy. 
 
 flutHTchAc Aoim t Tmnq. p. 470. c. 
 
 K I Thjs 
 
1 3 4 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 This text then will not help Terizo- 
 n'ms. All that can be proved from it is, that 
 irgZ'tos is ufed very properly where two 
 only are fpoken of. If tt^tyi in St. Luke 
 be allowed to fignify thefrfi or former of 
 two taxings, all that will refult from hence 
 is, that St. Luke thought there was another 
 taxing befide this 5 and that this now made 
 by Cyrenius was the former of the two. 
 No inflance of this fort will prove, that 
 the meaning of this paiTage is, This taxing 
 -was before j or prior to, that made when Cy. 
 renins was Governour of Syria. 
 
 The examples from John i. 15, 30* 
 xv. 18. are fome of the moft proper exam- 
 ples in the whole number : and if they are 
 rightly underflood, they are very much to 
 the purpofe. But, with fubmiffion to theie 
 learned men, I think, they are taken by 'em 
 in a wrong (enfe. They are both much of 
 the fame kind > but I choofe to confider flrft 
 of all that alleged from John xv. 18. h 
 xia^o:, ufAcic, fjLiau, yivaexsTe on \fjik ttzmtov 
 vpotv jueplcww If the world hate you % know 
 that it hated me before it hated you. Her wart 
 (a) is much pieafed with this example. If 
 
 (a) Tile vero S. Joannis xv. 18. locus ad hoc inftitutum 
 minfice .facit,— Si mundas vos edit, fcitote quia me frier em 
 11c bis odie hubiut* 
 
Chap. L Gospel History. 135-. 
 
 I f irpuTov be fuppofed to be an adverb, 
 then this is not a parallel inftance. But in- 
 deed, as I take it, it is neither an adverb, 
 nor an adjective, but a noun Subftantivc ; 
 or at left, an adjective ufed fubftantively : 
 and the latter part of the verfe ought to be 
 rendered : Know that it has hated me 
 your chief. The connexion of the words 
 may fatisfy us, that this was our Saviour's 
 meaning. His argument is, that men had 
 hated him who was fuperior to them 5 nay, 
 they had hated even his father, the difciples 
 therefore ought not to be furprifed if they 
 hate them alfo. v. 20. Remember the words 
 that I [aid unto you y the fervant is not 
 greater than his Lord, if they have perfe- 
 cted me, they will alfo perfectite you. v. 24. 
 But now they have both feen and hated me 
 and my father. The force of the argument 
 is not, that the world had hated him before 
 it had hated them : But he bids them confider, 
 that it hated him who was their mafter, an4 
 whom they allowed to be lo. This is the 
 argument made ufe of in other places with 
 the fame view. The difciple is not above m^^^ 
 his majler, nor the Servant above his Lord. a 5« 
 ----If they have called the mafier of the 
 
 K 4 konfe 
 
1^6 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 hoiife Beelzebub, how much more fhall they 
 C(ill them of his houjloold ? 
 
 If it be faid, that there was no occafion 
 to fubjoin your chief after me ; that me is 
 u fed £eiK?m<Sh and that the difciples could 
 confider Jefus no otherwife than as their 
 matter : I anfwer, that it is apparent from 
 the texts already alleged here by me, that 
 this was not our Saviour's Stile ; and that 
 he did not truft fo much to his difciples un- 
 derstandings. When he had occafion to 
 draw any inferences from his fuperiority, he 
 always exprefleth it. le call me Mafter, 
 and Lord, and ye fay well : for fo 1 am* 
 If 1 then your Lord and Mafter have wajhed 
 Johnxm. your feet, ye ought alfo to waflo one ano- 
 14 t hers feet. 
 
 TWros is ufed feveral times in the New 
 
 Teftamenty in the plural number, for fuperio- 
 
 xity of honour and dignity : Kal to?s ir^-ron 
 
 t£s TaAiKctias, is not ill rendered in our 
 
 Mark vi. verfion, chief ejlates of Galilee: ywatKtSv 
 
 7 jjksx*. T 1 * T6 ^ V ^f»T&>i' hk oA/yai, of the chief wo- 
 
 4« men not a few : or, as perhaps the words 
 
 might be rendered, not a few of the wives 
 
 of the chief men. 
 
 I t is likewife ufed ir> the Angular num- 
 ber in the fame fenfe. Kal J$ Idt G*A>i *v 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. 137 
 
 v/uuv uvat 7r£wT0$, l<T*> Vf&<£v S^Ao;* And 
 ivhofoever will be chief among you, let 
 him be your fervant* There is another un- xx *^ 7 * 
 exceptionable inftance of this ufe of the word : 
 
 fey $2 to?s— rjirnpyp %ja>j>la Tea ispo&Too Tnq mgh* 
 
 In the fame quarters were foffejfwns of the 
 chief man of the IJland. Grotius, tortus, 
 his annotations upon this place, has exhibi- 7% 
 ted a Greek infeription, found in this very 
 Ifland of Melita, a part of which inferip- 
 tion is thus : A. K. KIOS. lnnET2, PQM. 
 nPflTOS MEA1TAIQN. L. C. Kius, 
 Roman Knight, chief of the Melitenes. 
 
 The word is often fo ufed in the Sep- 
 tuagint verfion : irp&Toz rZv t?iclxqvtcl, chief 
 of the thirty *. Kal *A<rd<p -nrp»ro« T<Z>p*. lCkr9 *> 
 dSivTM f , and in many other other places, t Nehem. 
 And in Jofephus : 'IS T o; IL'ra <**?*, o« xii ' 4S " 
 Tff§ nrpiTn$ /u*ip&0$ *srg£ro$ 9 Juftus the 
 fon of Tifius y chief or leader of the 
 third faction in (a) Tiberias. I throw an 
 example or two more from other (J?) authors 
 into the margin. 
 
 (*) 7°f e ph' in vit. p. 907. V. 12 . (£) T« $ j X*8k 
 
 iovrcs xpuris n&\ ifucl' %. A. Herodot. lib.i. C. I If. «» jjav^ «*-os f 
 >£ TTguros ccvTuv x.A. ibid. C.173. KxiEircCfJtjiva)>}cit<;€ot&)TXf>%av> 
 cv A iw wym i\«*jjc*t Actx-i^ccif^mts^ x} t '?a\juuwv [Qvifiuiuv 
 legit Pcrizonius] xj r '£ftww tjwtos iyivw JElian. Var* 
 #//?. vii. 14. 
 
 Therb 
 
1 3 8 The Credibility of the Book II 
 
 There islikewife in the New Tefla- 
 ment a verb derived from ttpwt©,, accord- 
 ing to this fenfe of it s /W yivnmi ov 7zimv 
 cZvtoc, Trgoolivoovy that in all things he might 
 Col. i. 1 8. have the preeminence : or, that in all things 
 he might be chief: a word very common 
 alfo in other writers. 
 
 Nor do I fee, why wpcSj®. fhould not 
 be allowed to be ufed fubftantively in divers 
 of the places I have produced. Trinceps in 
 Latin is properly an adje&ive, and is often 
 (6 ufed : at other times it is a fubftantive. 'Av- 
 Tox.ep.i&g is fometimes an (a) adje&ive. It 
 is alfo ufed fubftantively. No one will deny 
 it. "T7raT©- is a word very near parallel 
 with Trpc^T©,, is often an adjedive, at other 
 times is ufed fubftantively, and denotes a Con- 
 ful. 
 
 I c o me now to the other inftance, John. 
 
 U 15. Hl<&* r\V OV UTTOVy OTTiau) jus e^%0- 
 
 %v % This was he of whom Ifpake, He that 
 cometh after me is preferred before me 
 The fame words occur again v. 30. withlit- 
 tle variation. But the laft claufe ought not, 
 
 (a) Aufiw rw yyTGxfoiTcfti. *Y%y& s ■D'onjf. Hal. lib. 7. 
 |». 408. V.I. 
 
 in 
 
Chap. I. GospelHistory. 130 
 
 in my opinion, to be rendered, for he was 
 before me, but, for he is my Prince or Lord, 
 
 What I have already faid in favour of 
 this meaning of nr^rog in the former in- 
 ftance may, I prefume, make way for ad- 
 mitting it here. 
 
 I apprehend John to fay: He that 
 follows me, or comes behind me, was al- 
 ways before me, or in my view, for he is 
 my Prince. "Ej&irpcaSBv and omaca (unlefs 
 I am much miftaken) are never ufed in the 
 New Teftament for priority or pofkriority 
 of time, nor for fuperiority or inferiority in 
 refpeft of dignity (unlefs they are fo ufed 
 herein the cafe of John the Baptijl) but al- 
 ways have a regard to place. For we mufl 
 all appear before the judgment feat of 
 Chrifi a . [ v Eu,7repa\$6v t£ 8i{jlccto$ t« X^cj-b] a % cor. v. 
 / faid unto Peter before them all b J°* 
 CEjLt7r^pcr3ev irccvToev']. Forgetting the^^ 
 things which are behind, and reaching 
 forth unto thofe things which are before iC cH .. ... 
 
 g3w i r 7ttKT2ivo[Aivo<;y Ivcimov and H/jntepaStv 
 arc frequently ufed the one for the other d . d Matth - 
 It is true, John came before Chrift, dwisw&fiS. 
 before his face. He went before him as an 9, 
 
 officer 
 
140 The Credibility of the Book If. 
 
 officer before a great man. But that is ex- 
 prefTed here in oViW /&£ Ip^oj^voc; 
 
 B u t I will not contend about this. Per- 
 haps \[L-n^d^r%v \k* yiynv is not ill rendered 
 in our tranflation, is preferred before me, 
 though it appears to me an unufual fenfe of 
 the word. 
 
 However, tt^SIos jt*« muft neverthe- 
 leffe be underftood, as I render it. And I 
 learn from Beza (a), that others have been 
 of the fame opinion before me. 
 
 Thus then John fays, toward the con- 
 clufion of his miniftry : Te your felves bear 
 witnefs that I [from the beginning] faid, 
 I am not the Chrift, but that I came before 
 
 * John in. fo m >^ Referring to what he had declared at 
 firft : 1 am the voice of one crying in the 
 wildemejfe, make strait the way of* 
 
 f _ ;. ,$. the Lord f. That is, I came not on my 
 own account, but barely as a harbinger that 
 makes way for his Lord. This is the pecu- 
 liar chara&er of John, under which he w^s 
 
 it2fc.x].3.prophefied of || : And under which he al- 
 
 Maiach.iihyzys fp ea ks f himfelf. And what in the 
 15 th and 30th verfes of this ift. chap, of 
 John, is 5U 7r^lrog p* fo, he is my Prince^ 
 
 (a) Quamobrcm etiam nonnulli xfaAs f*% interpretantur 
 fmicefsmetu 1 quod mihipenitus infolens videtur. Bez,, inloc # 
 
 is 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. 141 
 
 is in the 27th. verf. reprefented by an expret 
 fion that denotes the vaft fuperiority of Chrift 
 above him : ecvlos igiv qttigw (/m eg%o[JLepc$ 9 
 OS tfA.'sr^oa^iv /uw ylyivtv* « \yoo £k iipi at;io<; 
 
 it is, who coming after me y is preferred be- 
 fore me, whofejhoes latchet I am not worthy 
 to unloofe. That is, I am fo far inferior to 
 him, and am in fo low a poft under him, 
 that I am not worthy to perform the meaneft 
 office about his perfon : or, iu other words, 
 I am a mere harbinger, and he is my Lord. 
 Athenagoras (a) has ufed this word in this 
 very fenfe of a Prince or chief. 
 
 I hope it will be no objection againft 
 this interpretation, that then the words 
 I would not have been ircuiis julv %v> but igiv ; 
 for thefe are all one and the fame. I need 
 go no farther for proof than thefe two verfes: 
 8T05 rip ov %nxQv in the 15 th, in the 30th 
 is aTOS igi Tvegji « iyoi tnuov. So that 5p 
 and sgi fignifie the very fame thing, and arc 
 ufed one for the other. 
 
 (a) rJpo(r?xi J) t« ]£* to nguTtvw xecrcc <putriv t ru o't 2bgv<pt£»% 
 rot nPilTON, o'JWeJttv n t£ Trpoxvtpytiv <ku* onea-ov f[A7rce*i9 
 i£ irj>o<rxvTi<;' Decet enim hoc fecund um naturam principatum 
 habere, illud autem, fatellitis vice Principi fuo viam facere* 
 & praevio curfu, omnia impedimenta & praerupta tollere. D* 
 fie/for. p. jo. D.farif l6$6. 
 
 I AM 
 
14^ The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 I AM indeed aware, that fome Gramma- 
 rians will except againft my notion of -sr^atfos 
 being a Subftantive. I will then for the pre- 
 fent fuppofe it to bean Adjedive. But yet, 
 I cannot part with the interpretation I have 
 given of either of thefc texts. The context 
 latisfies mc, the fenfe I affix to the words is 
 the true meaning : and I can, if I miftake 
 nor, account for it according to the ftridkft 
 rules of the Grammarians. Let then ib-^£tov 
 in John xv. 18. be inclulive, and be under- 
 ftood partitively, and i^alv will be governed 
 by the ellipfis if. This I fuppofe will not 
 be contcfted. But I choofe to underftand 
 <&g(Srov hereexclufively. I think, that is the 
 beft fenfe. And then the ellipfis may be (a) 
 7rpo 7 or <we& 9 or whatever elfe the Gram- 
 marians like beft. Yl^Stoc, in John i. 15, 
 30. is evidently exclufive, according to my 
 way of rendring it 5 and the /uS following 
 is governed by an ellipfis of one of the laft 
 mentioned prepofuions. This I take to be 
 
 (a) Terizonius fays §. 24. Apud Graecos hanc vicem prae- 
 ftant praepoiitiones trgb 8c scsp, quarum ilia refpondet rZ ante, 
 haec ru prae. TJgo is alfo ufed to denote preference and pre* 
 eminence, both limply and incompofition. Simply : K«t» »r©» 
 
 vrpo £ swat to 2bKs7)i tix9fo%oyjtvi)<i Vhdo^p. 193. D.vid. St p-I94« 
 D. I* compofitioo : in xptr *>$, n^oTipxV) &c. 
 
 perfectly 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. \^ 
 
 perfe&ly agreeable to the rules of the Gram- 
 marians. And thus, in one place Jefus tells 
 his difciples, that he was chief above them : 
 and in the other John the Baptiji fays, that 
 Jefus was Prince or chief above him. And 
 now I have Beza on my fide, with reference 
 to John i. 15. For though he would not 
 allow, that ^wto's jua is my prince, yet he 
 fays (a), after a very careful examination, 
 he is convinced, it exprefTes the vaft excel- 
 lence and fuperiority of Chrift above John. 
 I am not fingular therefore in fuppofing, that 
 this text does not exprefs dire&ly and fim- 
 ply priority of time, but only virtually and 
 confequentially, as it is implied and com- 
 prehended in the fupetior dignity, of which 
 it is a part. 
 
 There is another wgiiv in the New 
 Teftament, which has been underftood by 
 fome in the fame fenfe, in which thefe learn- 
 ed men have taken the two former inftances, 
 though it is not alleged bv them. Now the „ M 
 fir ft day of the feaft of unleavened bread .'xxvi. 17. 
 
 (a) Caeterum hoc loco diligentius expenfo, quam antca, — Ia * 
 Declarat igitur praeftantiam, fed Chrifto pecuiiarem, & ip(i 
 propriam : nempe quafidiceret Joannes. Qui me fcquitur quafl 
 magiftrumpraeeuntem difcipulusquifpiam,'mihiantepofitus e(\ 
 idqueoptimo jure quia infinitis modis eft praeftantior: quamvis 
 ante docere coepcrim quim ille fck mundo patefecerit. In he 
 
 This 
 
1 44, The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 This was the fourteenth day of the month a 
 but it is urged here, that the 15th day was 
 the firft day of the feaft of linleavened bread 5 
 fotjofephus fays, that the 16th day of the 
 month was (a) the fecond day of that feaft. 
 And the words of the Law agree here withj 
 And in the fourteenth day of the firft month 
 is the pajfover cf the Lord. ^And in the 
 fifteenth day of this month is the feaft. 
 jyeuu Seven days {hall Unleavened bread be eaten. 
 xxvm.i -j^Q fourteenth day therefore was the day of 
 St-e Exod t h e paflfover. The feaft of unleavened bread 
 was diftinft from it, and lafted feven days 
 from the 14th at night. The fifteenth day 
 ofrhe month was the firft of unleavened bread. 
 Therefore, when the Evangelifts, fpeaking 
 of the 14th day, fay, it was ir^drm t£v 
 dfvjucov, they mean not the firft day of un- 
 leavened bread, but the day before that Feaft. 
 The ^ews have a rule, that in the compu- 
 tation of Feafts, the day ( b) preeeeds the 
 night. What ftreffe ought to be laid upon 
 
 <hKocrn) Antiq. 3. c. 10. p. 124. v. 20. 
 
 (b) Quum autem Matt. 16. 17. 6c Marc. 14. 12. ipfe dies 
 14. Nifan appellator primus dies azymorum, intelligendum id 
 €ft fecundum canonem Judaeorum, mox traditum, fcilicet in 
 facris comedendis diem praecedere nodtem ; lie ut terapus 
 vefpertinum diei 1 4. 8c nox iiibfequens hoc modo diei 14 ac- 
 ceDfcantur. RelanJ. Antic^ Heb.^. 422, 
 
 4 this 
 
Chap.I. Gospel History. j^f 
 this cafe, I know not. I am fatisned 
 we do not need it. The Vaffbver was 
 ftri&Iy fpeaking diftinft from the feaft of 
 unleavened bread, and feven days of un- 
 leavened bread followed the day of the psfT- 
 over. But their houfes were eleanfed from 
 all leaven on the morning of the day on 
 which thePafchal Lamb was (lain, and there- 
 fore after neon they could eat no leavened 
 bread. For this reafon, perhaps, the day of 
 the paflbver was called the fhft of unleavened 
 bread. But, wharever was the reafon of it, 
 it is certain, that the paflbver and the feaft of 
 unleavened bread are often taken promifcu- 
 oufly the one for the other. And though 
 Jofepkus, in the particular account of the in- 
 ftitution, diftinguiflies the paflover from the 
 feaft of unleavened bread, yet he often calls 
 the one the other. * At (a) that time, fays 
 he, the feaft approaching, in which the 
 Jews are wont to eat unleavened bread. 
 * The feaft is called the paflbver, it being kept 
 1 in remembrance of their departure out of 
 e Egypt- And in one place he fays, we keep 
 
 (a) 'EvTdcr^c 'j fttntt to'jvs rbv ttetipov sofritq, cv vj 'lad'airis 
 
 %<ru. r«5 s| 'Aiyvz-TX oczTx^crsaq olvtm yvnpinitf Anticj^, 17. c. 9. 
 §•3- P-77 3* v.aj. vid. ficp.609. v. 31.88;. v. ic. 
 
 L « the 
 
146 The Credibility of the Boot II. 
 
 (a) the feaft of unleavened bread eight 
 ' days. 3 According to this method of 
 computation, the 14th day wasthefirft of un- 
 leavened bread. So that when thefe two 
 feafts were confidered as one, as they were 
 very often, and the whole was called by the 
 feaft of unleavened bread, the fourteenth 
 day muft be the firft. The Evangelifts, per- 
 haps, do not write in Syftem : nor does Jo- 
 fephus, as it feems, nor indeed any other 
 good writers ; but according to the ufual 
 way of fpeaking. 
 
 HE RWAERT if?) lays great ftreffe 
 upon a paftage of Athenams, who quotes 
 
 (a) ' 0&ZV £<5 f//Vil!Aii1V TV)$ TOTS £va&lCl$ £OgTW UyOf/jiV S/p" Y,yj{^OC«i 
 
 ex.T0, tw t ktyyjM AtyofAivqv Antiq. 2. c. i$. p. S8. in'tt. 
 
 (b) Die vero locus Ariftotehs eft fingularis. Eum recenfet 
 Athenaeus Lib. xi. p. 5-05. xfo ^ olvtu \UXuto}v<&'~\ tx&' 
 kvfi to h$<§~ T Xoyuv Tyjl'3^ ' AX't'Eci[j J iv(&' i coc, 1$iKtct$ 6 Nfjeasv; 
 iVep? (£ XaTqf tav. ' AgiTOTzXqc, j cv raj Trspi XctyTm iSTW, y[d(pu> 
 'OvxZv x£e £p>yj£Tpi£c r&5 KaXHfhiv^q 1.u$po v (&> [&![&¥$ f.m <Poo[*zv 
 uvea Asyss *£ juwjMtf}cr«s, vi rg$ ' 'AXs%%yjZv% t% Tn'm x&i TTfxyrss 
 ypczfiivrs&s T Xcokocctikw oiaXoyav aiTtxpv$ (pcurKCov 7ioXvyjo(.- 
 6z<rxT@*' ' Act^oTtMc, trfo IIXutwoc, otn^oyaq yiypa<ptvcct to* 
 'AXeloit/jivcv. Haec quidem Athenaeus: Ubi fane verba i la )\ri- 
 flotelis T85 k^utxc, yfd^psJTxt; t ZoJKpuTM&v ^sc^oyav. Athenaeus 
 hifce interpretatur [r&s ^-mpev] %£o UXuTm^ <^#Aoy£$,5c.r.A. 
 Plato enlm in fuis Dia'ogis introducit Socratem qui horteru r 
 
 juvenes, fophiftas redarguat, viros doceatj unde haud immerito 
 
 vocantur Socratici- Quernaarioduni igitur Ariftoteles Akx- 
 
 ameni DiaJogos prius fcriptos, quam Plato fuos Socraticos con- 
 fer ipfiflet, vocat rss n^odrxs ygcc$iVT<»<; t 2&>xp«jr^Jv friciXayuty 
 He Divus Lucas, &c. Herwaerz. ubi fupra. pag. 197. 
 
 AriJtotle % 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. 14/7 
 
 Arijlotle, faying (as Herwaert underftands 
 the words) that Alexamenus\ dialogues 
 were wrote before the Socratic dialogues 
 [that is the dialogues in which Tlato intro- 
 duces Socrates'] cxprefly affirming, fays A~ 
 thenaeus, that Alexamenus wrote dialogues 
 before P/ato. 
 
 But it is very plain to me, that Ar'ifto- 
 tie fays that ^Aiexamenus's dialogues were 
 the firft Socratic dialogues 5 that is, that A- 
 lexarncnus was the inventer of that way of 
 writing. I have tranfcribed the paflage of 
 Kyithenaens more at length then Her'jiaert 
 has done. And if the reader will confider 
 the whole of it, I think he will be con- 
 vinced : 1 ft, That by Socratic dialogues is 
 here meant, not Tlafo's dialogues in which 
 he introduces Socrates, but in general that 
 way of writing : and 2dly, That Arijlotle 
 fays that Alexamenus s dialogues were {a) 
 the firft of the kind. From whence At he- 
 naens infers very juftly that Arlflole fays ex * 
 prefly, that Alexamenus wrote dialogues be- 
 fore Tlato. 
 
 I think likewife, that Atkenacus never 
 dreamt of that meaning of lyirifiotle's words 
 which Herwaert affixes to them. Interpret 
 
 f.«0 So Atkenaeus (ays exprefly. t£0' Lfi to I<^* t xiyw 
 
 L z Arijlotle 
 
148 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 Ariflotle as Wrwaert does, and Athenaeus 
 is guilty of a ridiculous tautology in his in- 
 ference. 
 
 That I underftand Ariftotle aright, is 
 farther evident from 'Diogenes Laertius, 
 whofe words upon the fame fubjedt are thus : 
 c Some lay that Zeno the Elean was the firft 
 e writer of Dialogues, but Ariftotle in his 
 
 * firft Book of Poets fays that Alexamenus 
 
 * the Teian was, as does alfo Vhavorinus in 
 « his commentaries (a). 
 
 I t was neceflary to dwell thus long upon 
 this inftance, becaufe it is the only inftance 
 from a profane author which Monfieur (b) 
 Bafnage, who follows Heryjaert, has quoted 
 in favour of this interpretation of St. Luke. 
 
 W e return now to Terizonius, and will 
 take next his inftances [$. 25.] $ Tap'R^x- 
 ?\i'6$ so^fvi Qut>(7i TolMvQik^i <urgoifa u and hue. 
 XL. 38. ^g <pxgjio-£io$ l^oSvi^ctJfj^afv Sri & 
 
 iaj^.qv fc£a'sr770 , 8jj T*r Qp dgjLfc? The left that 
 can be faid of thefe is, that they avail no- 
 thing at all, becaufe they are not parallel 
 with our text. If St. Luke's words had 
 
 (a) Aix*oyti$ roivvv <pu.tr t 7F£wtw y^ur^ctt Zwmat. rov 'EAs^tjjh 
 
 &$ «J fy&fiafioc, cv aZnffiVHf/tmopxn. Diog.Laert. Lib. ilf. Se^m. 
 48. (b) Ann. Polit. Ecclef. ant. Dom. $, num. 14. 
 
 been 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. 149 
 
 been,'sj^fiJ7» or 7r^ooTovlyivelo / zzr£p^>,Ifuppofe 
 we mould have been ail agreed, and there 
 would have been no occafion to employ a 
 good part of a differtation to prove that he 
 faid, This taxing was before Cyr enuts's time. 
 If there had been divers unexceptionable in- 
 ftances produced, in which #r£«7os followed 
 by a genitive [without the tjh^~\ had been 
 ufed for priority of time, then thefe here al- 
 leged would have been very good proofs 
 of this way of accounting for the con- 
 ftrudtion by way of Ellipfis, and to fuppofe 
 that 'are? ought to be understood where it is 
 not expreffed. But till that is done, they are 
 of no ufc. 
 
 But this is not all : For indeed 'Terizo- 
 nius could not have fhewn any thing more 
 againft himfelf than thefe examples. For if 
 it be the cuftom of the Greek authors to fub- 
 join ttq) after in-pcSto*;, when they intend to 
 fay one thing is before another, it is an ar- 
 gument that w%(£*o$ alone has not this power. 
 Nay, St. Luke, it feems, fubjoins <&& to the 
 adverb tsrpooTOv. I fuppofe <m£) is never fub- 
 joined to Tv^ne?^ or 'zc^in^pu But thefe 
 inftances fhevv, it is ufual to fubjoin it to 
 te^cSIos, when priority before another thing is 
 intended to be expreffed. 
 
 L 3 I* 
 
I To The Credibility of the Boot II. 
 
 If I fhould affert that communicare te was 
 good Latin, and equivalent to communicate 
 tecum, would it avail any thing to produce 
 inftances of comwimicavit mecum , cum 
 Caio, and the like ? Would thefe prove that 
 cum is needleGto be added, and that it is in- 
 cluded in the Verb? Would not all fuch 
 examples be againft me? This is Terizoniush 
 
 argument. 
 
 But then it mud be allowed, that Ten- 
 nonius's example from Arijlophanes, and 
 another from {a) Alexander Aphrodi/ius, 
 alleged by others in this caufe, prove that 
 TTpvlov the adverb is ufed, without tag) fol- 
 lowing it, to denote the priority they con- 
 tend for. How far the argument will hold 
 by way of analogy from adverbs to adjectives, 
 I cannot fay. It ought alio to be allowed, 
 1 think, that the paflage [§. 23.] from the 
 Maccabees, uydh rwv m£v i\ fj.nTv? IhXiulnGt, 
 laft of all, after the Jons, the mother died, 
 is a parallel inftance. But whether fuch ano- 
 ther example can be found in any good Greek 
 writer, I very much queftion. And the 
 <ut$>£1qc, /uoi t£ 'Ifc'Sa, of a Sam. xix v 43. but 
 
 I6Vus prius tonitru psrficit quam fulgur, aut fimul, Alexand. 
 ^krod. Problm- Lib. i. 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. i^i 
 
 not found in all copies of the Seventy, 
 is likewife an equivalent phrafe to that in 
 St. Lake, and to be underftood in the fame 
 fcnfc thefe learned men put upon St. Luke's 
 words. It I miftakc not, the whole ftrefle of 
 the argument for this interpretation relies 
 upon thefe three particulars 5 provided I un- 
 derftand aright, John'u 15. 30. xv. 18, the 
 ?rp'Jh t.'jV a^u'awr, and the pafiage from 
 Athenaeus : which, whether J do or not, is 
 fubmitted to the judgment of the reader. 
 
 An d it ought to be confidered, whether 
 it be reafonable to affix to wpdh in. Saint 
 Luke a meaning fo very unufual, if nor 
 unprecedented in any good writer, efpecially 
 confidering the many ways of cxpre fling the 
 fenfe which thefe learned men contend for, 
 fuchas «z&jf^, ( z^7i'^,7rpr7?£pr, iryflov % Trgplop 
 
 7T£p, 7Tp'Jh 7T£P, TTQ/ivy &C. 
 
 Lastly, a pallage of Herodotus [a) 
 docs very ftrongly incline me to think, that 
 it is not very agreeable to the genius of the 
 Greek Language to ufe the (uperlative adjeftive 
 irgc2ro$ to exprefs the priority of one thing 
 before another either in a pofitive way, or in- 
 ftead of TT?iri^o<;. He fays ; Oi ^g 'Kiyjir- 
 
 (4) Lib. a. init. 
 
 L 4 1w, 
 
i$i The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 1ioi 9 irgjLv \jlsv% -\cL\K\k-K\iyjx; gq$m QcLGiXkuaau, 
 ivojM^ov Suvr&s 7r^to1ug ycviaQcLi vnix^ocv a^G^fiJ- 
 *7rm* Ittc^t] d N g \oLfjL\jA r ti t xpc ) SctoiAsvouc, ^GgAwa* 
 h^ivcLL Si lives tybi'Gialo tt^ootoi, M tbtb w^i- 
 Zxai §piyzq izy&Uo&c, r^vla^ati ewvlwVy twv as 
 aAXm>, iutii&f c The Egyptians, before the 
 ' reign of Tfammetichus, thought them- 
 K felvcs thefirft [or mod ancient] of all peo- 
 1 pie. But fince the reign of ¥farnmetichus> 
 
 * who made an experiment for finding out 
 
 * who were the firft of all people, they have 
 ' thought that the Phrygians were before 
 
 * them, they, before others'. If 7t$to$ 
 could be ufed in the fenfe contended for, 
 why did not Herodotus, who had here ufed 
 it twice, ufc it once more > Why did he take 
 wep'TteP* in the later branch of the Sen- 
 tence, if Tr^TOs would have been as proper? 
 I do not think he did it for the fake of the 
 found, but the fenfe. 
 
 I have now fet before the reader the 
 arguments for this interpretation, and have 
 offered my own remarks upon them. I 
 muft conclude, as I began, with faying, that 
 I am in fufpenfe whether this meaning can 
 be put upon St. Luke's words, 
 
 7. There 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. iyg 
 
 7. There is another Solution which 
 was firft propofed by (a) Beza, and has 
 been embraced by many learned [b) men. 
 The Roman Catholic Authors that approve 
 of this Solution agree to underftand the 
 words, as they ftand in the vulgate verfion : 
 This firft c Defcription or Enrolment was 
 made by Cyrenius (c). The Proteftants ge- 
 nerally render them : This firft Enrolment 
 was made, Cyrenius being Treftdent of 
 Syria : or, when Cyrenius was Prefident of 
 Syria (d). 
 
 B y prefident of Syria, they do not un- 
 derftand, Prefident in the moft ftrid and 
 proper fenfe of the word 5 it being apparent 
 from Jofephus, that either Saturninus, or 
 Quintilius Varus muft have been Prefident 
 of Syria at the time this enrolment was 
 made. And there is no inftance of two 
 perfons being jointly Prefidents with equal 
 power in the fame Province, when a Pro- 
 
 (a) Bez. inloc. Vid.Sc Haef.Dem.Ev. Prop.ix. Cap. x. §. 3. 
 
 (b) Grot. 8c Hamm. in loc. Scaliger. animad. in Chron. 
 EujU.zd A. 2016. Cafau6. in Bar. Exerc. i. Numb. 31. 32'. 
 Ujer. Ann. ant. aer.Chr. v. Norif. Cenot. Pif. Diflert, ii. p.320 1 
 — 322. Pagi. app. adann. Bar. Num, 126. — 129. 
 
 (c) Haec dcfcriptio prima fa&a eft a praefide Syriae, Cyrino. 
 
 (d) Hacc defcriptio prima facta eft praefidente Syriae Cyrenio. 
 Eez.. Haec defcriptio prima facia eft cum praeeffet Syriae Cy- 
 renius, Cafaub. ubi fupra. Numb, 31. 
 
 vince 
 
1/4 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 vince was in peace, as Syria was at this 
 time (#), 
 
 They fuppofe, that when lyiuguftus 
 had iffued his decree that all the world, that 
 fe, ail the Roman Empire fhould be taxed 
 (for in this wide and extenfive fenfe dothefe 
 learned men underftand thefe words of 
 Si. Luke) Cyrenius was lent with extraordi- 
 nary power to make the Cenfus in Syria and 
 Jitdea : And Satuminusot Quint ilius Varus, 
 which fixver of them was then Prefident, 
 was joined with him : and was iubordinate 
 to him, or had equal power with him in this 
 particular work. Cyrenius therefore having 
 at this time fome power in Syria, he is called 
 Prefident of it, though he was not proper- 
 ly Prefident or the ordinary chief Magiftrate 
 of that Province. 
 
 I n order to juftifie this Solution two 
 things are to be confidered: i. Whether 
 Cyrenius, though not properly Prefect of 
 Syria, may be called fo in a loofe and gene- 
 ral fenfe : and 2dly, It muft be fhewn, that it 
 is not unlikely, that Cyrenius might be fent 
 upon this affair at this time with extraordina, 
 xy power. 
 
 (a) Vid.Norif. Cenotaph. Pif.Diff. ji. cap. i6.$. 10. 
 
 As 
 
Chap.I. Gospel History, iff 
 
 As to the firft point, it is alleged, that 
 the Title of Governour or Prejident is often 
 given to others bcfide thofe who are properly 
 poiTelTed of that dignity. Jofephus calls 
 Saturninus and Volumnius Presidents of 
 Syria (a), though Saturninus was at that 
 time Prefident, according to his own ac- 
 count, and Volumnius Procurator only, /. e. 
 the officer that took care of the Emperour's 
 revenue in that Province. 
 
 That Cyrenius might be fent upon this 
 affair with extraordinary power, is not at all 
 unlikely. For the office of Cenfor in the 
 City was very honourable, and was a diftincT: 
 charge from that of the Confulsand Praetors, 
 the ordinary magiftrates. The Surveys in 
 Provinces alfo were often performed not by 
 the ordinary governours but by pcrfons fent 
 thither with extraordinary power, and thofe, 
 perfons of the higheft eminence and dig- 
 nity (£). 
 
 Such 
 
 (a) '^KiZ/oq -j otiXiyira Tfsjt rarm ro7c, KctiPctpo$ yysfjtioo'tv 
 SEfttrggfppri xj ' OvoMi)f/j';ia)--7:i^l coy im n ItBcraoviva £ 'OuoXoiajvih £ 
 Tvgioc$ szirctTxvTuv Antiq. L. \6. cap.o.pag. 734. v. 2<. and 
 
 2vg'.uq y.yifjij'ovxc,- ib. cap. 10. p. 741. v. 1. 
 
 (&) Regimen fumraae rei pene$ Germanicum agendo Gallia, 
 rum Cenfui turn intentum. Tacit. Ann. Lib. 1. cap. 31. ad 
 A- U. 767. Interea Germanico per Gallias, ut diximus, cenftig 
 
 flccipenti, 
 
Jf6 The Credibility of the BootIL 
 
 Such an one was this Cyrenius. He 
 was not defcended from a noble, or Tatri~ 
 cian family : But by his early fcrvices he had 
 obtained the honour of the ConfuMhip, and 
 palled through that and other offices with 
 great reputation : obtained a memorable vic- 
 tory over the Homonadenfes y for which he 
 received the honour of triumphal ornaments : 
 Was afterwards Governour to Cuius Caefar, 
 Augujius's eldcft adopted fon : Married 
 Aemilia Lepida, who had been defigned by 
 Auguflus for the wife of Lucius, his fecond 
 adopted Son j and at lad had the honour of 
 a publick funeral by a Decree of the Senate 
 in the reign of Tiberius {a). 
 
 This quick difpatch he made of affairs 
 of importance rendered him a very fit man 
 
 acc'pentl, exceJJJJfe AuguCium, adfertur. Id. cap. 33. vid. 8c 
 L.ii. cap. 6. 
 
 (a) Sub idem rempus, ut mors Silpicii Qiiirinii publicis ex- 
 fcquiis frequentaretur, petivit (Tiberius) a Senatu. Nihil ad vere- 
 rem £c patritiam Sulpiciorum famiram Quirinius pertinuit, or- 
 tas apud municipium Lanuvium : Sed iropiger militiae, &acri- 
 bus miniileriis confulatum Tub Divo Auguftoj mox expugna- 
 tis per Ciliciam Homonadenfium Cafteliis inilgnia triumph! 
 adeptuSj datufque Re&or Caio Caefari Armeniam obiinenti, 
 Tiberium quoque Rhodi agentem coluerat. Tacit. An. L. iii» 
 c. 48. Jghiirinic — defiinata quondam uxor L. Caefari, acDivo 
 Augufto nurus, dederetur. Id. ibid, c 23. De hac re vid. etiam 
 Sueton. Tib. c. 49. & de victcrii in Homoaadenfes parta* 
 Strabon. Lib. xii. pag, 854. 
 
 for 
 
Chap. I. GospuHistory. I fj 
 
 for fuch an affair as this Cenfus in Syria and 
 
 Judea. 
 
 Moreover there is nothing in the 
 
 hiftory which we have of Cyrenius, which 
 is any way inconfiftent with his coming into 
 Jiidea about this time: but divers particu- 
 lars, which render it very probable he might 
 be employed in this work. 
 
 CTRENIUS was Conful of Rome, 
 A. U. 742. He might therefore very well 
 be fent upon the expedition againft the Ho- 
 monadenfes in the year U. C. 747. or, pof- 
 fibly, in 746, It was a piece of prudent 
 advice which Maecenas gave {a) Auguftu*, 
 never to beftow a provincial government 
 upon the Senators or other great men, till 
 fome time after they bad laid down their City 
 Magiftracy. Which advice Auguftus fol- 
 lowed, and appointed the fpace of five years 
 interval between their ferving any publick 
 office in the City, and receiving another in 
 the Provinces (£). 
 
 As Cyrenius's expedition againft the fore- 
 mentioned people was his firft action after his 
 Confulfhip, he might very probably be crn- 
 
 (a)Dio. Lib. 51. pag, 4~9- fin. (b) Mn&,« vp* 
 
 Tttin ir£t f/jtrcc to c'v ryvoXu ufeccixtyitrQ*? Id. L. 5 3. p. 505. 
 
 C Au&or & aliarum rerum fait. In queis ne magiftratus 
 
 depofito ftatim in provincias mitterentur, Sutton. Aug.c. 36. 
 
 ployed 
 
15*8 The Credibility of the Book II 
 
 ployed in it, A. U. 747. Archbifhop UJher 
 [a) thinks he was then Proconful of Cilicia* 
 Cardinal Noris thinks it more likely that 
 he was not then the ordinary Governour of 
 Cilicia, but that he was fent upon this expe- 
 dition with extraordinary (b) power, How- 
 ever the learned men that embrace this fo- 
 lution fuppofc, that having finifhed this war, 
 he might be fent into Syria and Judea to 
 perform the Cenfus there, in the later end of 
 the year of Rome, j\j^ or, as others, in 748^ 
 or 749. About which time the Cenfus or En- 
 rolment, which St. Luke fpeaks of, muft 
 have been made, for Herod died in the year 
 750, or 751. 
 
 CTRE NIUS was not appointed Go- 
 vernour to Caius Cefar till the Year U. C. 
 755. Cardinal Noris infers this from the 
 words of Tacitus above-cited : datus ReElor 
 Caio Caefari Armeniam obtinenti* It is 
 evidently a miftake of thofe learned men 
 who have thought that Cyrenius was Go- 
 vernour to Cains, when he firft went into 
 the Eaft. It is certain, that M. Lcllius 
 was then his Governour. And Cyrenius was 
 not put into that Poft till after the death of 
 
 (a) Vid.Ann. A. 5. ante aer. Chr, (b) Cenotaph. 
 
 PjJQT.PiiT.ii.pag. 3 10. 
 
Chap. L Gospel History. 15*9 
 
 Lollius [a), which feems to have happened 
 fome time in the year of Rome 7 55. Be- 
 fides, it is certain from Jofephus, that Caius 
 was at Rome after the death of Herod, aad 
 therefore was not yet fet out for the Eaft. 
 For he was one of thofe whom Augufttis 
 called to the Council he held after Herod's 
 death about confirming his lafl: will (£). 
 
 CTRENIUS therefore feems to have 
 been at leifure for this work : And from the 
 whole of his ftory and character, fo far as it 
 is come down to us from the Greek and 
 Roman Authors, no man appears more like- 
 ly to have been employed in it. 
 
 This folution has one advantage above 
 moft of thofe above-mentioned, in that it is 
 here allowed, that this furvey was performed 
 by Cyrenius, in which all the ancient chriftiaa 
 write rs agree, except Tertullian ; who in 
 one place (but the only place in which he has 
 named the chief officer concerned in it) af- 
 cribes it to Saturninus. And we are much 
 obliged to thefe learned men for tracing the 
 hiftory of Cyrenius, and thereby removing, 
 in part at left, the obje&ions againft this fup« 
 
 (a) Felleius, L.ii.c 102,. Suet. Tib. c. 15. N$rif uWfiipi** 
 p. 517. (b) Jofefb.Ant.L' 17. c-9-P» 77n* 
 
 l pofitioa 
 
1 6b The Credibility of the Boot IT. 
 
 pofition, which has been the current opinion 
 of Chriftians. 
 
 There is however one difficulty attend- 
 ing this Solution: I mean the fenfe, in 
 which thefe learned men underftand Cyreni- 
 us\ government or prefidentfhip. I do not 
 at all conteft the validity of their argument, 
 that the title of fiybjuLwv may be given to one 
 who is not properly Prefident. But fince 
 Cyrenius certainly was afterwards the ordinary 
 governour of Syria, it is not eafy to under- 
 ftand this title in St. Luke in aloofe and ge- 
 neral way. And I can never perfwade my 
 felf, that St. Luke intended no more than the 
 power and authority of making a Cenfus in 
 Syria. If Cyrenius had never been Prefi- 
 dent of Syria, perhaps their inflances had 
 been to the point ; but now, I think, they 
 are not. Befides, according to the way in 
 which thefe learned men generally interpret 
 St. Luke, riyefjLOvluovlQS, &c. is here the genitive 
 cafe abfolute, or governed by W\ underftood : 
 either of which does as fully exprefs Cyrenius's 
 being Prefident of Syria, as any form of ex- 
 preffion can do, 
 
 JOSEPH SCAL1GER feems to 
 have interpreted thefe words lomewhat dif- 
 ferently from other learned men who embrace 
 
 this 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. i6t 
 
 this Solution. He takes them thus. This 
 "Defcription <was thejirji under Cyrenius prc- 
 fident of Syria. I put his words in the mar- 
 gin (a) 9 that the reader may judge whether 
 I mifunderftand him. But ftill this interpre- 
 tation is liable to the objection laft mentioned : 
 for it is implied in it, that Cyrenius was Prc- 
 fident of Syria, at the time of both thefe 
 Surveys. 
 
 §. V. There is yet another interpreta- 
 tion, which thefe words are capable of, and 
 which has for fomc time appeared to me the 
 genuine meaning of them. This was the 
 firft affeffement of Cyrenius Governour of 
 Syria. The natural order of the words is 
 this : Auth etytitlo ft TTgGpivi a,Tizy~a,(pri iy m 
 T. 2.K. There are innumerable inftancesof 
 a conftru&ion parallel with this here of 
 *A'/tk r) amyfcLyk 7t^ty. Mntth. xxii. 3$. 
 'Adn eci irp'Jh $ fizylAvi ivfofw' This is 
 the firfl and great commandment, Mark 
 xiL 30. "AvIyi TTfxTYi ZvIoKa' Numb, ii. 32. 
 ' A'JTt) iwidK^lc, TWV CkSv 'Icr^juriX' Thefe 
 
 are thofe which were numbred of the chil- 
 dren 
 
 (a) Ideo S.Lucas non contentus eft dicere "Avtv ^n^u^in 
 iV-nxo itysfjb6vi'javT<&' tSJs 'Zvotxs Kypjjy.y. Sed quum duas «;ro- 
 +/f6t<p4s fciret fuifle, addidit, jrp&iTjj : uvr* y Ajraypa^ Syiptrm 
 Wj^tnur Ccrte, fi eft sr^r*, ergo cuaedam fuit &vt*{U j 8c fane 
 
 M t^T 
 
1 6 % The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 dren of IfraeL I put an inftance or two 
 more into [a) the margin. It is eafie for the 
 reader to obferve, thefe inftances are parallel 
 with the words before us: the particle fi or 
 at follows r 'Av1i) or c A'jr^i, and preceeds 
 the Subftantive. 
 
 'Eyivelo is not here fa£t l a eft 7 was made y 
 but fuity was. I prefume I need not give 
 any proofs, that this is a very common mean- 
 ing of this verb. 
 
 The diftant fituation of iyivelo in Saint 
 Luke from duw need not create any fcruple. 
 In fome examples the verb fubftantive is quite 
 wanting, as in Markx'u. 30. Numb. I 44. 
 Sometimes s^r is exprefled, and follows im- 
 mediately after <z,v1y. But it is found in all 
 kinds of pofitions in paflages parallel with 
 this of St. Luke. I give one inftance which 
 anfwers the conftruclion of this verfe in every 
 refpeft, Rev. xix. 9. Slot 01 Xoyi dx-Sivot 
 tun r3 ©e£. Thefe are the true fayings of 
 the word of God. And another inftance 
 
 r~? JWspees zneminit idem. Act. v. 37. Atque ita diftinguen. 
 dum efle nemo dubitare poteft. Scaliger. animadv. in Chron. 
 Eufeb. ad. A. 2016. 
 
 (a) Numb. i. 44. Aurjj ij smtrKi^iq h iTrsa-Kt^ecro Mavovj$, 
 C.ap.iii.I.Kest avTcttctt'y&io-iis 'Acinar v.^.^roevroc rk ovopctTM 
 t viav [Aapw* vid. cap. iy. 32, 38. Dent. vi. 1. 6c alibi. 
 
 from 
 
Chap.I. Gospel History. i6$ 
 
 from Tlato (a) of iylvelo it felf, in a fitua- 
 tion exactly parallel with this in St. Luke. 
 
 C H q 7) TiMvrr\ y do EygX£$LTZ$ 9 1S ZTizigptf 
 
 TlfJJLV iyi'Jilo, GLVO0OC, 6$$ flfJLB?^ Cpx7fJJeV CLV, 1^ V 
 
 linn 5v 4<7rei&l§Y)/uev cLgjigvv> g aAAw^ <p£pvi- 
 /uLooivuh $ $iy&iQ'Ki?v. c This, O Echecrates, 
 6 was the end of our friends and as we fay, 
 4 the bed, wifeft and jufteft man that ever 
 ' we knew*. 
 
 I f it be objected, that it mull: be thi$ 
 cenfus 5 or this firft cenfus was made, and 
 not this was the firft cenfus 5 bccaufe there is 
 nonounfubftantive preceding £v% 7 by which 
 it can be governed : I anfwer, that as I inter- 
 pret the words, £Sln is governed by the 
 amyejLpn that follows, or by an hmygp$i 
 underftood. And this is the cafe of many 
 other (b) paflages, which yet muft be con- 
 ftrued, as I do St. Luke. 
 
 Let us proceed. When St. Luke calls 
 Cyrenius Governour of Syria, I underftand 
 the words in the ftri£fc and proper fenfe. 
 r HyifjLDvlvov7@* r3$ KugJ.x<; is not the genitive 
 caie abfolute, or governed by i<m underftood, 
 and to be conftrued, Cyrenius being gover- 
 
 {a) Phaedo. Fin. (b) Ezek. 48. v. r. Kul 
 
 raZroc rx ogtu. T QvXcov. V. 29. 50. "Avry k y% t h SsxAurt c* 
 x.^putous <pvXu7<; X Wpu*>.' x} »ret oi hap^irpot mrm — K#l 
 
 M a nour 
 
I #4 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 n : ur of Syria, oiwhen Cy renins was gover- 
 nour cf Syria 5 but it is governed by ^roYe^f ft 
 They do not exprefs any time at all. But this is 
 Cyren'us's title, the title, by which he was 
 well known in that part of the world. As 
 we fay, Antony the Triumvir, or Cat the 
 Cenfor, to diftin^uifh them from others of 
 the fame names. 'klyt(jyvbQp%$ 9 &c. is with 
 me the fame thing, as if St. Luke had faid, 
 
 It is certain, that Greek Authors delight 
 very much in theufe of participles; and, I 
 think, more efpecially when they fpeak of 
 titles and dignities. Thus Cicero, in (V) l^io, 
 fays: c We expefl that our Praetors and 
 c Confuls fhould follow the laws of rcafon 
 c and jufticc/ Tis fJL.lv q-&nr\y)iVTu$ 701$ 6' 
 
 mtsTv dZcJcroi/^y The fame fame hiftorian 
 (Ji) fays: c The three brothers, the Antonies, 
 ' had all of them fome office in the City at 
 
 * one and the fame time : Marcus was Con- 
 
 * (ul, Lucius Tribune, and Caius Praetor'. 
 TaiiS yx? it a&Apo) 01 'Avnzivioi xtoi o%s «p- 
 
 (a) Lib. 43. p. 150. D. W Lib. 4$. 
 
 These 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. l6? 
 
 These participles feem to me to be fome- 
 times fubftantives, or at left, to be (a) ufed 
 fubftantivcly. I believe all are fcnftblc that 
 a,0<Xm is fa ufed. Some of thofe other titles 
 of offices or dignities cxpreiTed by partici- 
 ples feem to me very near, or altogether pa- 
 rallel with it. 
 
 But let iybfyvltgin®!' be a mere partici- 
 ple 3 only then it will be laid: If ir be go- 
 verned by etmy^rty it ought to have been 
 {lyifj^vivaavl^. To this I anfwer, that un- 
 doubtedly iyifjigi>e*jwj;v1@* would have been 
 very proper, but fo is alio nytfjgvivjvl®*. It 
 is no uncommon thing for Greek authors to 
 ufe the Prefcnt tenfc for the fir ft Aorift. I 
 give an inftance or two that fully juftify my 
 interpretation. Jofephtis fays : c And it h cer- 
 1 tain that Varus was of a Royal Family, 
 c ftnee he was a defcendent of Soemus who 
 c wasTetrarchof a country near mount (J?) 
 € Lib anus' '. Kct\ w Q/UQ?tQ%.vfJ<,ivooS o 'Ova*©* 
 (ZcMnhiK'S yivu;, lyfovos y, r j(juiv & m^l Ai(&4,VW 
 7*le&f>%8vlQ<;. T^ionyjius fays, that the Latins 
 were fo called from Latinus a K'ng of (c) 
 
 (a) kiy.iuvoc, KoiT'3^ o t^s vy,<t% lmTto7rtvai. Dio. lib. 6i. 
 p. 701. A. Kina Toit&u t# rn "Zvpfai vytfAOYfvwTi' Jofeph* 
 p. 907- V.I2. A'jto$ ^ \zzo t5 t«<j- ^a/pec, if/tfAoi/ivovTot ^eBu^i 
 
 id. p. 945- V.35. (b) P.9^9. v.ao. (c) Anciq. 
 
 R.lib. z. p. 76 v.24. 
 
 M 3 that 
 
1 66 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 that country. 'Ovc/uut 3 tyivw Si gvjjl^lvU; 
 Ztui Acitivoi iK?\.nvv)ttLV lir dv^zpq Sbva&vovlos 
 ■roov ihTrwv Acltivu. If any fhould fay, it is im- 
 proper to underftand this participle, as I do, 
 becaufe Cy renins was not Governour of 
 Syria till after the time in which St. Luke's 
 furvey was made 5 I add one example more, 
 which muft fully obviate this exception. He- 
 rodian fays, c That to Marcus the Emperour 
 ' were born fevcral daughters (a) and twofons. 
 Tcp QcuJiXivQvli NLz&Kcei QvycLiieeg jmv iyeycvlo 
 tfftsiW, afperzs 3 Mo. Yet feveral of thofe 
 children were born to him before he was 
 Emperour. This inftance fhews plainly, that 
 fchefe participles do not always import only 
 the time when men are in office. 
 
 I hope this is fufficient to fhew, that 
 iybfjiovivovhg is the fame as y^fj.cvo*;, at left 
 that it is governed by *&roygx<pn. The fup- 
 pofing 7\yc^cvsvov1o<; T.2. K. to be the Geni- 
 tive abfolute, or governed by g?n, as it has 
 given occafion for the objection we are now 
 upon, fo it feems to have led fome learned 
 men into interpretations of this, text unfup- 
 ported by the life of good Greek writers. 
 
 Iapprehend I have now juftifkd 
 pay interpretation of every part of this verfe : 
 
 (a) Lib. i. ln\t» ' 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. 167 
 
 TJois was the fir ft Ajjeffement (or furvey) 
 of Cyrenius the Governour of Syria, or, of 
 Cyrenius who was Governour of Syria. 
 
 B u t if any choofe rather to take Scaliger's 
 method, as to the firft part of the verfc, I 
 fhall not contend about that, provided my 
 ienfe of the later part be admitted. Then 
 the Interpretation will ftand thus. This fur- 
 vey was the firft [furvey] of Cyrenius the 
 Governour of Syria. 
 
 Nor can I fee any reafon why all thofe 
 who follow Beza, and fuppofe that this 
 furvey was made by Cyrenius, as well as that 
 made after Archelaus's removal, fnouid not 
 receive this interpretation. When they come 
 to fhew why this is called by St. Luke the 
 firft furvey, though indeed they have not 
 tranflated the place as I do, (a) they una- 
 voidably run into the fame meaning. Ba- 
 
 (a) Denique dicitur haec defcriptio jwrd, ut diilinguatur ab 
 alia, de qua Aci. v. 37. quam Jofcphus & Eufebius liucris con- 
 iignarunt, 6c Tub Cyrenio etiarn fa&am dicunt, licet diverio 
 tempore. Hamm. in he. ex ». crlione Cleric. 
 
 Hunc igitur cenfum Quirinius haV.uit A. U. 749 cura ex- 
 traordimrio imperio in Syriam mifius; quae defcriptio prima 
 3 S.Luca dicitur, quod idem poftea Quirinius A.U. 760. praefes 
 ordinarius in Syriam veniens, cenfum iterum in Judaea egit, 
 cadem turn piimum in provinciae fonnam redacta. Norif. 
 Cenotaph. P^p. 312, 
 
 M 4 ronius 
 
1 68 The Credibility of the BookIL 
 
 ronius (a) likewife underftands the words 
 much after the fame manner, only he falfly 
 fuppofed that Cyrenius was twice prefident 
 of Syria. 
 
 Some time after I had been perfwaded 
 this was the fenfe of this text, I met with 
 thefe words of TanaquilFabtr (b). Beatus 
 Lucas y cap. 2. ait natum ejfe Chriftum do- 
 minum tempore primi cenfus, feu defcripti- 
 onis 7 quae a Cyrenio feu Quirinio faffia eft. 
 This paffage gave me a great deal of pleafure, 
 though it does not appear how this acute and 
 learned man underftood iyi^ovluovh^ — But I 
 have lince met with a more cxplicite authori- 
 ty for my way of tranflating e &vfa ri cl7td- 
 yeoLQ-A. The title of Origeiis xl Homily 
 upon St. Luke 7 in the latin edition of his 
 works, is thus: T>e eo quod fcriptum eft y 
 Tuer autem crefcebat & confer t abatur fpiritu, 
 ufque ad eum locum ubi ait : Haec eft de« 
 fcriptio prima quae fail a eft fub praefide 
 Syriae Cjrino. And, in the body of the 
 (f) Homily are words to the fame efFjd. 
 
 (a) Quod igitur ab Evangelifta ea defcriptio a Quirino prima 
 facia dicitur : non fie (ut vidimus) eft accipiendum, ut tunc 
 primum judaei fuerintdefcripti at que cenfi : fed primam dixerit 
 XG^tdiwji-ctindae fub eodem praefide facia. App. tlunu 88. 
 
 (b) Epift.lib. i. ep. 43. (9 Haec fuit defcriptio pri- 
 ma, a praefide Syriae Cvrino* 
 
 Jhb 
 
Chap, I. Gospel History. i6p 
 
 The verfion I here offer does net only 
 appear to me a very natural and obvious mean- 
 ing of the words, but it is very good fenle, 
 and extremely fuitable to their pofition in a 
 parenthefis. In thofe days there went out 
 a decree from Cefar Augujlus that all the 
 world [Land] JIjouU be taxed. {This was 
 the fir ft ajfejfement of Cyrenhis the Gover- 
 Tiotir of Syria), It isneedyefs to qblerve, that 
 if this verfion be allowed, the objection we 
 are confidering vanifhes. There is no colour 
 or pretence to fay, that St. Luke confounded 
 the cenfus or furvcy, made in the time of 
 Herod, with that made after the removal of 
 Archelaus. . 
 
 §.VL I APPREHEND thei'C llCS UOW 
 
 no objection againd St. Luke, but what may 
 arife from the doubts which fome may have 
 in their minds, concerning Cyrenhis being 
 the officer employed in making this furvey. 
 I wifh the reader be not quite tired with this 
 long (ucceffion of criticifms. Eut whether 
 he will accompany me any farther or not* I 
 think my iclf obliged to take into confidera. 
 tion all the difficulties which attend this 
 particular circumftance. 
 
 H e r e I adopt at once all that has been 
 already offered by thofe who embrace Be&a's 
 
 Solution; 
 
170 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 Solution, to make it appear probable, that 
 Cyrenius performed the Cenfus of which 
 St. Luke fpeaks. But I now enjoy a peculiar 
 advantage above thofe learned men, in the 
 fuppofition I advanced at firft, that this cen- 
 fus of Cyrenius was of Judea only. They 
 think, that Auguftus's decree extended to 
 the whole Empire j and that Cyrenius was 
 fent with extraordinary power to make the 
 cenfus in Syria and Judea. But they fup- 
 pofe, (and indeed they are obliged to allow 
 itj that Satuminus was joined with him, 
 if Satuminus was then prefident. This has 
 vyvo.n'PerizOfjiiis {a) a fine advantage againft 
 their fuppofition, that Cyrenius was concern- 
 ed in this cenfus. To give Cyrenius fuperior 
 or equal power to Satuminus in Syria, the 
 province of which he was the ordinary 
 governour, would have been an affront, 
 efpecially confidering that Satuminus was 
 equal to Cyrenius^ in every refped, and 
 fuperior to him in fome : for he was of a 
 better family, and the elder Conful by fevea 
 years. And it is no lefs injurious to Cyre- 
 nius to put him under Satuminus* 
 
 I a m not at all concerned with this. I 
 think Cyrenius performed the Cenfus alone, 
 
 (a) Pifiert.de Aug. Defcrij). §.15, 16, 17. 
 
Chap. I. GospelHistory, 171 
 
 by virtue of the extraordinary power with 
 which he was fent. But if any are inclined 
 to think, that Saturninus was joined in the 
 Commiffion with him, this would be no 
 difparagement to Saturmntis . To give him 
 authority in a neighbouring kingdome where 
 he had none before, would not be to leiTen 
 him, but to augment his power. Nor do I 
 fuppofe, it could beany difgrace to Cy renins 
 to have the Governour of Syria made his 
 partner. 
 
 I proceed to confider all the difficul- 
 ties that can affeCt the fuppofition that this 
 cenfus was made by Cyrenius, as far as I 
 am concerned with them. 
 
 1. It is faid, that it was not cuflomary 
 for the Romans to fend any great man twice 
 into the fame country. Since it is certain from 
 JofephuSy that Cyrenhts afterwards made a 
 Cenfus in Syria and Judea, it may be con * 
 eluded, he did not perform that Cenfus, 
 which St. Luke fays was made in Judea at 
 the time of our Saviour's nativity (*). 
 
 (a) Multis de caufis difplicet nobis gemma haec Cyi 
 deicriptio. Bis ad eandem rem Quirintum in Syrian] fuilTc 
 
 mifium, fidem vix imperat, nee Romano 1 : sd more* qua 
 B*[nage, Ann. Vol, Ecc. ant. Dom. 5. num. 14. 
 
 To 
 
17 x The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 T o this I anfwer : I allow, that it was 
 not ufual for the fame perfon to be more 
 than once made the Prefident of one and the 
 fame province.— And in this Baronws, who 
 thought" Cyremus was twice or thrice Govcr- 
 nourof Syrians deferted by all learned men. 
 Por none of the defenders of Beta's Solu- 
 tion, who maintain the double cenfus of 
 CyrenhiSy do fay, that Cyremus was twice 
 the ordinary Prefident of Sjria. 
 
 B u t it was very common for one and the 
 fame perfon to be lent twice or oftnerinro 
 the fame country in different Pofts or with 
 different degrees of authority. CafaubonQi) 
 has produced inftances enough to filence this 
 objection. And M. Vipfanius Agr/ppa, the 
 perfon laft mentioned by him, was fent twice 
 into Syria by Auguflus with extraordinary 
 power. Firfl: of all, A. U. 731. (£), and 
 again, A. U. 7l%- if). I will 
 
 (a) Nequevero nullum eftexemplum illorum, qui in eaio'em 
 provincias cum ecdem, vel diverfo munerefunt mifli. C.CaiTms 
 profectus in Syriam Quaeftor M.Craffij mox ipfo&c ejusexer- 
 citu de'eto, res magnas ibi gefllt, & aliquamdm provinciam 
 obtinuit: eidemque pofl: aliquot annos fenatus Syriam 8c hel- 
 ium contra Dolabellam decrevit. Ventidius Baflus, quando 
 pnmum cum Party's bellum geflit, Antonii fuit Legatus-. 
 poftea ejufdem belli gerendi cura illi demandata eft, — -— Agrippa 
 qui per decennium Aiiam adminiflravit, bis ex Italia eodem, 
 eft profeclus, Cafaub.'m Baron, Exerc. i. num. 31. 
 
 W Dio.L<>S, p. fiE, c. (0 Id. 1,54- P* 534* B < 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. 173 
 
 I will give an undeniable example of 
 an officer's being twice in the fame pro- 
 vince with different degrees of power. When 
 Yijo prefeft of Syria had been removed by 
 Germanicus y and after that Germanicus him- 
 felf died, the officers in the province had a 
 confutation together, who fhould be made 
 Prefident of Syria. Vibius Marfus laid 
 claim to it, but at laft yielded to en. Sentius 
 Satuminus [a) the elder officer. Thus 
 Sentius, one of the chief officers then in 
 the province, was made prefident. This a- 
 lone is a proof, that it was very common 
 for officers to ferve different pofts in the fame 
 Province. But this is not what I aim at. 
 This Confultation (b) was held A. U. 772, 
 A.D. 19. And it appears from Jofephut 
 (c), and Tacitus (d) y that long after this, 
 in the (e) reign of Claudius, this fame Vibius 
 Marfus came to be actually prefident of 
 
 (a) Comfultatum inde intsr lega'os, quique alii fenatorum 
 adtrjnt, qui/nam Syriae fraeficeretur. Ec ceteris modice nifis, 
 inter Vibium Marsum 8c Cn. Stmtium diu quaefitum : dein 
 Marfus ieniori, & acrius tendenti S^ntio conceiTit. Tacit. Ann. 
 lib.ii. cap. 74. (£) M. Silano & L. Norbano Ccjf, 
 
 fc) Kgjj fjtsir jj Koto, TliTgaiHo* yjiv Mug<r < & J &i£t%ciTo 3 )£ ontzi 
 Sti^ww. Ant. 19. cap. vi. §. 4. (d) Et ieriperare Ar- 
 
 menia™, ni Vibio Marso Syriae legato bellum minitante co- 
 hibitus foret. Tacit. Ann. xi. cap. 10. (e) About A.U. 
 
 705, vid. Pagi; Grit, in Bar. A.D. 42, n. viii. 
 
 Syria* 
 
 
174 The Credilility of the Book II. 
 
 Syria. There is therefore no abfurdity at 
 all ia fuppofing that Cyrerims was fent by 
 Auguftus with extraordinary power at the 
 later end of Herod's reign to make a furvey 
 mjudea, and that about ten or twelve years 
 afterwards he came as the ordinary governour 
 into Syria, and then made a Cenfus in that 
 province and in Judea annexed to it. 
 
 2. I t is obje&ed, that none of the Ro~ 
 ?nan or Greek hiftorians, though Cy renins 
 has been fpoken of by feveral of them, have 
 taken any notice of this Cenfus. 
 
 I answer, that this is no difficulty at 
 all. I fuppofe, that no one will make any 
 queftion, but that Cyrenius made an aflcffe- 
 ment in Syria and Judea, when he was fent 
 prefident into Syria, becaufe we have Jo- 
 fcphuss authority for it. And yet none of 
 the Roman or tireek authors have faid any 
 thing of this Cenfus. 
 
 Though Tacitus has in the paflage 
 cited above reckoned up divers of Cyrenius's 
 exploits and honours, and others have made 
 mention of him and of fome of his Services • 
 yet Floras (a) has taken notice of a confi- 
 
 (#) Marmaridas atque Garamantas Curinio fubigendo dedit 
 (dttgujlus). Potuit 6c ille redire Marmaricusj fed modeftior 
 in aeftimanda vi&oria fuit. Florm lib- iv. cap, n. 
 
 derabk 
 
Chap. I. Gospu History. 175- 
 dcrable aftion of his, omitted by all the 
 reft : If indeed he means our Cyrenius. 
 
 3. But it will be faid : It may be cer- 
 tainly concluded from the account which Jo- 
 fephus has given of the Cenfus made (a) by 
 Cyrenius after Archelaus's banifhmenr, that 
 Cyrenius had never been in J tide a or enrol- 
 led the Jews before. If he had, Jofephus 
 could not well have omitted to take notice of 
 it then. 
 
 low n, that at firft fight this muft appear 
 a very considerable difficulty. 
 
 (1.) But it ought to be obfcrvcd, that 
 Joftphus does not particularly name any of 
 Cyrenius's honours or fervices, befide thofc 
 which relate to the City of Rome. Jofe- 
 phus knew of divers others, but he does not 
 expreffe them. And among thofe omitted or 
 referred to in the general only, may be that of 
 the firft furvey in Judea. 
 
 (2. ) I t h 1 n k it is plain, that either Jo- 
 fephus did not care to give any particular ac- 
 count of that oath taken by the Jews to 
 Auguflus in the later end of Herod's reign, 
 or elfe that he found but a flight account of 
 it in thofe Memoirs or hiftories which he 
 made ufe of. He had faid nothing of it, 
 
 (a) Sec the account above p. 105. 
 
 had 
 
1 7 6 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 had it not been for a mod remarkable distur- 
 bance in Herod's court and family, with 
 whicji it had a connexion. 
 
 A n d any one may perceive, that it is 
 then touched upon very {lightly. Is it not * 
 ft range that Jofephus fhould not name the 
 officer who took the oath for t^Auguftus ? 
 No one can make any doubt, but there was 
 fome Ferfon of eminence deputed by the 
 Emperour for that work. As Jofephus did 
 not mention him then, I fhould never ex- 
 pert to find his name afterwards. And who- 
 ever can account for Jofephus's omiflions 
 relating to the affair of the oath, may account 
 for hisfilcnce in this paflage, though Cyrenius 
 had been once before in Judea. 
 
 (3.) I think that arguments formed 
 upon theomiffionsof Hiftorians are of very 
 little weight. There are in Jofephus other 
 omiffions as remarkable as this. Idcfire to 
 confiderthe account he gives, in his War of 
 the Jezcs, of the reducing Judea to a pro- 
 vince. c Archelauss country being reduced to 
 ' a province, coponius a man of the equeftrian 
 € rank among the Romans was fent Procurator, 
 * being invefted with the power of life and 
 1 death. In his time \i<m 1£h~] a certain Galilean* 
 I whofe name was Judas, excited the people 
 
 to 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. 177 
 
 to a rebellion, telling them, That they were 
 ' of a mean fpirit, if they could endure to pay 
 1 tribute to the Romans, and acknowledge 
 ' mortal men for their Lords after God had 
 * been their King. This man was the head 
 c of a diftinft Scft, in nothing like (a) the 
 reft. This is all he fays. He does not fay 
 there was now any cenfus made, has not one 
 word of Cyrenius or his coming mtojudea. 
 
 I t is true that Jofephus has, in two other 
 places in the War of the Jews (b), cccafio- 
 nally mentioned Cyrenius, and in the later 
 of thofe places, his cenfus alfo. But it mud 
 be allowed to be a very great omiflion,not to 
 do this in the proper place, in the account of 
 the reduftion of Jndea to the (late of a pro- 
 vince. This might have been realbnably ex- 
 petted in a hiftory of the War, when this af- 
 feffement made by Cyrenius and the princi- 
 ple broached at that time were main foun- 
 dations of it. 
 
 If it be faid, that J oft phis palled over 
 this affair (lightly in the IVar, becaufe he in- 
 tended to write his Antiquities and mention 
 it more particularly then : I anfwer, this is 
 faid without ground. And I might as well 
 
 {a) De Bell Lib. if. cap. 8. §. u (b) Ibid. c. 17. 
 
 §.S. & I.7. c.3. §.i. 
 
 N fay, 
 
178 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 fay, that Jofephus omitted in his Antiquities 
 the particular account of Cjreniuis frfi a&ff- 
 menr, becaufe he intended to write afterward 
 another book of the hiftory of the Jews, 
 and go over their affairs once more, as he 
 exprefly allures us at the concluiion of his 
 ^^Antiquities. 
 
 J OS EP HUS informs us in his Life, 
 writ after the IVar, and the Antiquities, 
 that the Jews had a battle with GeJJius Flo- 
 rus their laft Procurator, and killed him and 
 a good many of his men , and that this vi- 
 ctory was fatal to them: Poraimuch as this 
 determined them to the war with the (a) 
 Romans. Is it not ftrange that Jofephus 
 fhould fay nothing of this in the hiftory of 
 the War, where he has made fo frequent 
 mention of Florus, and afcribed the jewifb 
 uneafineife under the Roman Government 
 to the cruelties and other irregularities of this 
 man? For this inftance lam indebted to (h) 
 Monficur LeClerc. 
 
 (?) 'O d[' lxz>Xccv y^ <rvy..p£i>.av \huyj^ hi%vfyi y 77t>hm t tbir 
 uvty, irsccvTaiv : ttj yivzr&t ro TiGsix %reatryj»i irvf/Lafcfu £:;uy}$ 
 t}u*wt6v%$' evrijfQw** Y J **"< tutu fruTxstv in rev ftiXtu/et ayeus-fa 
 iravrss, ^ viKvo-uvTic, t&s 'Papui^s uq reA®- tifomrctpiv, inVit* 
 §, 6. (6) Hift. Ecc A. D. 66. n. 12. 
 
 There 
 
Chap. I. GospflHistory. i 
 
 There is another omiflion appears to 
 me very remarkable. Theroras, Herod's 
 youngeft brother, is often mentioned by 
 Jofephus. He has particularly informed 
 us, thar. when Auguflus was in Syria, he 
 gave this *P her or as a Tetrarchy (a) at the 
 requeft of Herod. And we are informed 
 by Jofephus, of V her or as s retirement into 
 his Tetrarchy, of Herod's vifiting him there, 
 and of Tkercras's dying (I?) at home, and 
 of his being brought afterwards from thence 
 to be buried. But yet, if I miftake not, he 
 has never once faid what this Tetrarchy was, 
 whofeit had been before, nor where it lay. 
 It is true, that whereas in the Antiquities {c) 
 Jofephus fays Pheroras went to his Tetrarchy > 
 in his War (d) he fays, he went to Pcraea, 
 (or as in fome copies Petraea): but *Peraea 
 properly focallcd,could not be this Tetrarchy, 
 becaule Teraea belonged all along to 
 Herod. But this Tetrarchy cf ^Pheroras was 
 given him by Auguflus, and was difrir.ct 
 from that eftate or revenue which (e) had 
 
 (a) Antiq. iy. c 10. §. 3, (b) Tbid.K 17. c. ?. 
 
 de B.J. 1. i. c. 2.9. (r) 4>£p»p«» d[' st* Tv,? ol'jt* 
 
 TtTf*p%Sx$' p. 76. v. ~j. (.) Qijieifxs J bfro%agii<ni0 
 
 1*5 rw ntpuioiv p. 103 1. v. 41. vid. Sep. 1032,. v. 16. (^1 T« 
 
 uTromyjcic, qsh tv^ fixa-thua', irboTvo'tviKeiTOVTebhwTetr x, A.Antiq. 
 15. c. 10. 5. 5. 
 
 N 2 been 
 
J 80 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 been fettled upon him by Herod. Thefe 
 particulars may convince us, that, though 
 Cyrenius was m Judea in the time of Herod \ 
 Jofep/ous was capable of omitting to take 
 notice of it. 
 
 4. Again, it will be faid : It may be 
 fairly concluded from another place in Jofe- 
 j>hus> that Cyrenius was but once in Judea. 
 For he fays, that c Majfada was then held 
 c by Ekazar, the chief man of the Sicarii? 
 c a dcfcendent of Judas, who perfwaded 
 ' not a few of the Jews not to cnrole 
 c themfelves, as I have faid {a) above, when 
 1 Cyrenius the Cenfor was (£) fent into 
 « Judea\ 
 
 1 own it, this is a difficulty, but the ar- 
 gument is not conclufive. It is true, that 
 Judas made this difturbance when Cyrenius 
 was fent into judea, or in the time of Cy- 
 renius: but it does not follow that Cyre- 
 nius was lent but once into Judea. The 
 New Te (lament will afford us an inftance 
 upon this very fubjefl: which will be of uie to 
 
 (a) Vid. ile Bell. 1. a. C. 17. §. 8, (b) K*Asir<w 
 
 «5 to ji*» fyxpiov Mxcc&^Ky Xfotirnxst 3 t 2 j6«t«Ajj$>3»«» Lvto 
 
 *l«h'Jw %x oAiyxs , e'e, ftpirspov o"i<rs, A03x.cc ;*&, pd nau^ toss 
 
 JS.I.7. 08. $.£. 
 
 US 
 
Chap. I. Gospel History. i 8 i 
 
 us. Gamaliel fays : \_AJter this man rofe 
 up Judas of Galilee, in the days of the tax- 
 ing, and drew away much people after him. 
 If we had in our hands this book only of 
 St. Luke, namely the Afls of the Apoftles y 
 it is not unlikely that many would have 
 fuppofed, that St. Luke knew of no other 
 taxing made in J udea, but that, in the time 
 of which Judas role up. But we are allured 
 from his Gofpel, that this conclufion would 
 have been faife : for there, he has fpoke 
 very particularly of another, which he calls 
 the fir ft, or at left diftinguifhes very plainly 
 from fome other. 
 
 I must be allowed to repent here once 
 more, that arguments formed upon the fiience 
 of writers are very feldomofmuch moment. 
 Jofephus is the only jewijh writer of thofe 
 times, in whom we have the hiftory of that 
 country : And it cannot be juftly conclud- 
 that any particular thing was not done, 
 or that fuch or fuch a circumftance did not 
 attend it, becaufe he has not mentioned it, 
 All writers have their particular views, and 
 fome things we are very defirous to know 
 might for fome rcafon or other, which we 
 are ignorant of, lie without the compafs of 
 their defigns. Befides, the moft accurate and 
 N 3 care- 
 
1 8 x The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 careful historians have omitted many faftsor 
 incidents, that might be very properly men- 
 tioned, through forgetfulneffe or overimht. I 
 take the omiilion of the defcription of the 
 Tetrarchy that belonged to Pleroras to be a 
 remarkable inftance of this fort. 
 
 5. But it will be laid, that Tertullian 
 is pofitive, the cenfus in Jucfea at the time 
 of our Saviour's birth was made by Sentius 
 Saturninus {a), 
 
 I answer, to this : (1.) It ought to be 
 confidcred, that the Heretic Marcion, with 
 whom Tertullian difputes in this place 3 did not 
 admit the authority of the firft chapters (Ji) 
 of St. Luke's Gofpcl. And it was the cu- 
 (lorn of Tertullian to argue from thofc parts 
 of fcripture, which the Heretics he was dealing 
 with (V) acknowledged. Poflibly there- 
 fore Tertullian having, or (uppofing he had 
 rcalon to think, that this cenfus was made, 
 when Saturninus was prefident of Syria, he 
 
 (<?) Sd & cenfus confiat actos Tub Augutlo nunc in Judaea 
 per S.ntium Saturhinum. /.pud quos genus ejus inquirere 
 potuiflent. Contr. Marc. lib. 4. c. 19. (6) Accedk 
 
 his Cerdon quidam. SAim evangelium Lucae, ncc ra- 
 
 men return recipic. Poll hunc difcipulus ipfius emerfit Mar- 
 
 cion. Haerefin Cerdonis approbare conatus eft. de praef- 
 
 crip. Haeret. cap. 51. (c) Quam & argumentationibus 
 
 earum,Sc fcripturis quibus utuntur, provocavimusex abundanti. 
 de came Cbrifti* cap • 1 f. 
 
 might 
 
Chap, I. Gospel History. 183 
 might choofe to mention the ordinary officer 
 as a thing certain : but yet might not in- 
 tend to affirm that the cenfus was made by 
 him, but only that it happened in his time. 
 Ifaac Cafuubon judged it not unreafonable 
 lb to underftand Tertullian, who often ufes 
 words (a) improperly. I thought it not fit 
 to deprive the reader of this anfwer or this 
 learned man. But I do not adopt his inter- 
 pretation of Tertullian. 
 
 (2.) TE RTU L L I A N's authority 
 ought not to outweigh the tcftimony of 
 more ancient writers who were nearer the 
 event. Juftin Martyr, in his firft apology, 
 prefented to the Roman Emperour fixry years 
 before Tertullian wrote his books againft 
 Marcioriy fays, this Cenfus was performed in 
 Judea by Cy renins \ and all other writers 
 agree with Jufiin^ as has been fhewn al- 
 ready. 
 
 (i.)TERTULLIAN's authori- 
 ty is of the lefs weight in this point, becaufe 
 he has made very grofs blunders in hiftory, of 
 
 (fi) Tertullian us cum adverfus Marcio. fcribit, SeJ & co-jltst, 
 
 ad majorcm iidem magilhatum ordinarium pot:us noroi- 
 
 nat, quam extraordinarium- Ait aurem per SeniiumSnturnlnum 
 dure cv Tertuliianice, hoc eft, improprie pro h\ TL&rU 2*T»pi- 
 »*> ve\iyt(itov*uovT&' t^ 2. K. CaUub. Epercit. i.n. 1 1. 
 
 N 4 which 
 
184 The Credibility of the Book 1L 
 
 which I (hall fay fome what more in the third 
 chapter. 
 
 (4.) I imagine fome account may be 
 given of this miftake of Tertullian. It has 
 been obferved,that Marpion, whom Tertul- 
 lian was now arguing with, did not own 
 thefirft chapters ot St. Luke's Gofpel. Ter- 
 tullian therefore not having his eye particular- 
 ly upon St. Luke-, and fuppofing that this 
 Cenfus was made in Judea when Satuminus 
 was prcfident of Syria, lays, it was made by 
 him, 
 
 J UT) £l^ having been afterwards a 
 branch of the province of Syria, he con- 
 cluded that it was fo at this time, and that 
 therefore the Cenfus muft have been made by 
 the Prefident of Syria. But this was argu- 
 ing from later to more early times, as men 
 not throughly veiled in hiftory are apt to 
 do. 
 
 After the banifliment of Archelaus y 
 Judea w r as annexed to Syria. But whilft 
 Herod was Jiving, the prefident of Syria had 
 not any proper authority in Judea. The 
 Prefident of Syria was always the moft con- 
 siderable officer in the Eaftern part of the 
 Empire. When the Romans had any 
 
 war 
 
Chap.L Gospel History, igy 
 
 waf(#) in that part of the world, the neigh- 
 bouring Kings were obliged to follow his di- 
 rections, to furnifh thofe fums of money> 
 or thofe troops which he required, and to 
 fend thefe to the places he appointed. When 
 any differences happened between thefe Kings 
 and Tetrarchs, they were bound to refer 
 them to him, nor could they march any 
 forces out of their territories without his 
 confent. But he feems not, efpecially in a 
 time of peace, to have had any proper autho- 
 rity within their dominions. 
 
 Nor do I think, that I here impute to 
 Tertullian any very grofs miftake. The ftate 
 of dependent kingdoms and provinces in the 
 Roman Empire underwent frequent changes. 
 And a perfon had need to have made hiftory 
 his peculiar ftudy, and to have aimed at fome 
 uncommon accuracy, in order to undcrftand 
 the ftate of ail the Roman provinces for a 
 couple of Centuries, 
 
 I h a v e now gone through all the diffi- 
 culties which are of any moment in this 
 point. 
 
 (a) Turn inrelle£ro Barbarorum irrifu, qui peterent quod 
 cripuerant, confuluit inter primores civitatis Nero, beljum an* 
 
 cys an pax inhonejla placer -et, nee dubitatum de bello 
 
 icribitur tetrarchis ac regibus praefe&ifque ac procuratoribus 
 —jujps Corbulorth obfequi. Tacit, Ann. 15. 0.15. 
 
 3 I HAVE 
 
J 35 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 I have nothing farther to add to thofe 
 evidences which 1 have already produced, 
 except thefe two obfervations : ift. that it 
 fecms to mc highly probable from the man- 
 ner in which Eufebius (peaks of this matter 
 In his chronicles, that it was originally the 
 common opinion of Chriiiians, that Cyre- 
 nius was fent into Judea on purpofe to make 
 this Cenfus: ' In the thirty third year of 
 
 * Herod., Cyreriius being fent by the Roman 
 ' Senate made a Cenfus (or enrolments*) of 
 
 * goods and pcrfons (*)\ This does very 
 much confirm the opinion of thole learn- 
 ed men who think, that Cyrenius was fent 
 with extraordinary power : Though why 
 Eufebius mentions the Senate inftead of 
 the Emp.'rour> I know not. 
 
 Possibly fome may be difpofed to fet 
 afidc Eufehius\ authority, becaufe, in his Ec- 
 clefiauical Hiftory, he has confounded the 
 two furveys. But I muft confeffc, Iafcribe 
 that, not to ignorance, but to fome what a 
 great deal worfe. It is impollible, that a 
 man of Eufebhtis acurenefle, who had the 
 New Tejiament and Jofephus before him, 
 mould think a Cenfus made after Archelans\ 
 banifhment was the fame with that made before 
 
 (*) Chron, pag. 76. 
 
 Herod 
 
Chap.L Gospel History. 187 
 
 Herod died. But Eufebius was rcfolvcd to 
 have St. Lvkes hiftory confirmed by the ex- 
 prefs teftimony of the jewijb Hiftorian, right 
 or wrong. Here Eufebius was under a biafie. 
 In his Chronicle we have a fimple unbiailcd 
 account of what was the opinion of Chrifli- 
 ans and others at that time. 
 
 Secondly \ I t feems to me in the nature 
 of the thing mod probable, that fome pcrfon 
 was fent with extraordinary power to make 
 this Enrolment. There is no evidence in 
 Jojephus, that i_Auguftus had any intention 
 to take away the Kingdome from Herod and 
 make Judea a province. A Cenfus in his 
 dominions was a very great difgrace. But 
 to have ordered it to be performed by the 
 Prcfident of Syria would have been an ad- 
 ditional affront. It would have looked like 
 making Herod fubjeft to Syria. Since 
 Jtidea was to continue a diftind Kingdome^ 
 as hitherto, and only to be reduced to a more 
 Ariel: dependence, the only method of mak- 
 ing this Genius could be that of fending 
 fome perfon of honour and dignity, like 
 CyreniuSy to enrole the fubjecls of Herod, 
 and value their eftatcs, that for the future, 
 tribute might be paid according to this Cen- 
 fus. And this does admirably fu.it the na- 
 ture 
 
1 88 The Credibility of the Book XL 
 
 ture of the oath mentioned in Jofeppjns, the 
 fubftancc of which was to be faithful to 
 Cefar and Herod. 
 
 I conclude therefore, that it is upon 
 the whole mod probable, that the firft affeffe- 
 ment, of which St. Luke here writes, was 
 perlormed by Cyrenius, as well as the fecund. 
 This appears to me a very natural meaning of 
 St. Lukes words, and the external evidences 
 for this fuppofirion feem to me to outweigh 
 the objeftions. 
 
 If any are ftili of another opinion, I wifh 
 they would fupport Herwaert's interpretation 
 by at left two or three unexceptionable ex- 
 amples from fome good Greek writers. 
 
 W e have now got through the affair of 
 the Cenfus. If I have not been fo happy* 
 as to remove every difficulty attending this 
 text of St. Luke $ yet I hope the reader 
 will allow at left, that I have not concealed 
 or diffembled any. 
 
 
 Chap. 
 
Chap. II. Gospf.l History. 189 
 
 Chap. II. 
 
 Two obje&ions taken from the 
 Silence of Jqfephus. 
 
 §. I. He has not mentioned the /laughter 
 of the Infants of Bethlehem : g. II. 
 Nor of the Galileans, whofe blood 
 Pilate had mingled with their Sacri- 
 fices. 
 
 $. L^SSSjj t. Matthew fays : Then Herod, 
 
 p S H when he Jaw that he was 
 
 t£i^!S3 mocked of the wife men, was 
 
 exceeding wroth, and fent forth, and few 
 
 all the children that were in Bethlehem, 
 
 and in all the coafls thereof from two 
 
 years old and under, according to the time 
 
 which he had diligently enquired of the 
 
 wife men *. 
 
 It is objefled to this, That if there had 
 been fo cruel a (laughter made by Herod, of 
 innocent infants at Bethlehem, a place not 
 far from Jerufalem^ it is very unlikely it 
 
 ihould 
 
 Ma:i it. 
 
ipo The Credibility of the Book II- 
 
 fliould have been omitted by Jofefhus, who 
 has writ the Hiftory of the Jaws, and par- 
 ticularly of the reign of Herod. 
 
 T o this I anfwer : i . This appears to me 
 to be at the beft an objedion of a very ex- 
 traordinary nature. The molt exad and di- 
 ligent hiftorians have omitted many events 
 that happened within the compafs of thofe 
 times of which they undertook to write. 
 Nor does the reputation which any one hi- 
 florian has for exadneffe invalidate the credit 
 of another, who feems to be well informed 
 of the fads he relates. Suetonius, Tacitus, 
 and UioCaJJius, have all three writtenof the 
 reign of Tiberius : but it is no objedion a- 
 gainft the veracity of any one of them, that 
 he has mentioned fome things of that Em- 
 perour, which have been omitted by the reft. 
 No more is it any objedion againft St. Mat- 
 thew, that he has related an adion of Herod, 
 not mentioned by Jofephus. 
 
 2. There have been as great cruelties 
 committed by many Eaftern Princes: nor 
 was there ever any man more likely than He- 
 rod to give the orders here mentioned by 
 St. Matthew. When he had gained pofief- 
 fion of Jerufalem (V) by the Afliftance of 
 
 / ( a ) J°fiph. Antiq. {, 14-jc 16, §. ult. 
 
 the 
 
Chap. E GospelHistoky. 191 
 
 the Rowans, and his rival Antigonus was 
 taken prifoner, and in the hands of the Re- 
 man General Sofas, and by him carried to 
 Mark ^Antony, Herod by a large fum of 
 Money pcrfwaded Antony to put him to 
 death. Herod's great fear was, that Anti- 
 gonus might fome time revive hisprctcnfions, 
 as being of the Afmonean family. Arifto- 
 bulus, brother of his wife Mariamne, was 
 murdered {a) by his directions at eighteen 
 years of age, becaufe the people at Jen/fa- 
 lern had fhewn fome affection for hisperfon. 
 In the feventh year of his reign from the 
 death of Antigonus* he put to death Hyr* 
 canns, grandfather of Mariamne, then eigh- 
 ty years of age, and who had faved Herod's 
 life when he was profecuted by the Sanhe- 
 drim 5 a man, who in his youth, and in the 
 vigour of his life, and in all the revolutions 
 of his fortunc,had fnevvn a mild and peaceable 
 difpofition (£). His beloved wife, the beau- 
 tiful and virtuous Mariamne had a public ex- 
 ecution (c), and her mother Alexandra 
 followed foon after (d). Alexander and 
 Arijlobuhts, his two Sons by Mariamne 
 were flranglcd in prifon by his order (e) 
 
 (a) Aitiq.xv. c 3. §. 3. tie Bell L. i. c. n. (&) J at ^ 
 i<). c.vi. tie Bell, ubi iupra. (c) Antrq if. c. vii.§. 5. 6. 
 
 (J) Ibid. §. 8. ( e ) Aat's^iG. C.X\.%.6.dtBelLL.'\.c\if. 
 
 upon 
 
I9X The Credibility of the Book 11. 
 
 upon groundlefle fufpicions, as it feems, 
 when they were at man's eftate, were mar- 
 ried and had children. I fay nothing of the 
 death of his eldeft Son Antipater. HJofe- 
 fhus^s character of him be juft, he was a mif- 
 creant, and deferved the word: death that 
 could be infli&ed. 
 
 I n hislaft ficknefTe, a little before he died, 
 he fent orders throughout Judea, requiring 
 the prefence of all the chief men of the na- 
 tion at Jericho. His orders were obeyed, 
 for they were enforced with no lefs penalty 
 than that of death. When thefe men were 
 come to Jericho^ he had them all fhut up in 
 the Circus, and calling for his Sifter Sa- 
 lome and her husband Alexas, he told them : 
 My life is now but fhort, I know the difpo- 
 fitions of the jewijh people, and nothing will 
 pleafe them more than my death. * You 
 1 have (^)thefe men in your cuftody, as foon 
 ' as the breath is out of my body, and be- 
 c fore my death can be known, do you let 
 € in thefoldiers upon them and kill them. All 
 
 * Judea and every family will then, though 
 
 * unwillingly, mourn at my death'. Nay, jo- 
 
 XTilvcCTi 7Ftpi?*l<TXVTi$ T»5 ?f>XTta)TK$, UM 7rZrct 'lifdXiOt >£ 7Tc6{ 
 
 liK<& 9 ecKwfa' spot i'aKcutny de Bell i.e. 33. § 6. 
 
 fephus 
 
Chap.II. Gospel History. ipg 
 
 fephus fays, ' That with tears in his eyes he 
 ' conjured them by their love to him and their 
 € fidelity to God, not to fail of doing him 
 c this honour : And they promifed (a) they 
 c would not fail. 
 
 These orders indeed were not executed. 
 But, as a modern hiftorian of very good fenfe 
 obferves, 'Thehiftoryof this his mod wick- 
 
 * ed defign takes off all obje&ion againft the 
 
 * truth of murdering the innocents, which 
 c may be made from the incredibility of fo 
 
 * barbarous and horrid an a&. For this 
 ' thoroughly fliews, that there can nothing 
 € be imagined fo cruel, barbarous, and hor- 
 
 * rid, which this man , ft*§* not capable of 
 J doing (b)\ 
 
 It may alfo be proper to obferve, that aL 
 moft all the executions I have inftanced in 
 were Sacrifices to his ftate jealoufy, and love 
 of empire. And the (laughter which St. Mat- 
 thew has given an account of, was made up_ 
 on the occafion of tidings brought to Je~ 
 rufalem, of the birth of one who was King 
 of the Jews. 
 
 (a) Kott 6 ft [//iTcc &&k^ucjv 7roTViCt)U)i»&', ^ r» <rvyy<9t'$ rw 
 turn** t§ xiriv tk Qua TrpovKxXav, hntrMVtrt ys* iiTiUjao% 
 k\iw % xci)tum afAo^oya* a xucct.Qfoxaft' Antiq. I7.cvi. §. 5 # 
 
 (b) Vrideaux Conn, Part. ii. p. 65-5. 
 
 o 3. JOSE- 
 
IP4 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 3. JOSE? HUS has given us an ac- 
 count of a terrible execution made in He- 
 rod's court, and at Jerufalem about this very 
 time, upon the occafion of fome predictions 
 that God was about to take away the king- 
 dome from Herod. I think it was made at 
 the very fame time with the {laughter of the 
 infants. St. Matthew relates only what was 
 done at Bethlehem, Jofephus^ what happened 
 zijerufalem. The Silence of Jofepkus a- 
 bout the former, and of St. Matthew about 
 the later, may be in a good meaiure ac- 
 counted for by thefe two or three considera- 
 tions. 
 
 (:.) St. Matthew was not concerned to 
 relate ftate matters, but barely to give the hi- 
 ftory of Jefus Chrift, and therefore all that he 
 was obliged to take notice of upon this occa- 
 fion was the attempts made upon the life of 
 Jefus. Jofephus's is a political hiftory of the 
 jewijlo nation, and therefore the executions 
 at Court might be more fuitable to his dc- 
 fign. 
 
 (2.) All writers of good fenfe and 
 candour, who have wrote the hiftory of 
 iuch jealous and cruel princes as Herod> 
 have been obliged, both out of a regard to 
 themfclves,and their readers,to omit fbme of 
 5 their 
 
Chap.IL Gospel History. 19^ 
 
 their odious and offenfivea&ions, and topafs 
 by fome parts or circumftancesof thofe trans- 
 actions which they mention (a). And I 
 cannot help paying a particular refped to the 
 Evangelifts for the many inftances of their 
 candour and goodneffe, and for this in par- 
 ticular, that they have none of them fought 
 to brand the memory of Herod, who fought 
 the life of Jelus, with the many cruelties of 
 his reign, nor the dreadful circumftances of 
 his death $ and that Matthew, who alone 
 has informed us of the murder of the in- 
 fants, confined his narration to that, and 
 palled by all the other tokens, which, I doubt 
 not, Herod fhewed at this time of a mod 
 odious jealouiy. 
 
 Nor would I blame Jofephus barely for 
 the omiffion of the barbarities committed at 
 Bethlehem. He has related many cruel ac- 
 tions of Herod. To have related them all 
 would probably have appeared fpite and ill 
 will, rather than faithfulnefle or impartiality. 
 It is evident there were many put to death 
 at Jerufale7n, befide thofe he names in the 
 account of that execution. Poflibly the 
 
 (a) Neque fum ignarus, a plerifque fcriptoribus, omifla 
 multa turn pericula <k poenas, dum copia fatifcunt $ aut 
 quae ipfis nimia 8c maefta fuerant, ne pari taedio le&uros ad- 
 rkercnr, vereatur. Tacit. Ann, 1. vi. c. 7. 
 
 O 2 omiflion 
 
i<)6 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 omiffion of the murder of the Infants may 
 be owing to thofe reafons I have here hinted, 
 namely, a fear of being charged with adefign 
 to load Herod unreafonably, or a fear of 
 rendering his hiftory difagreeable by too par- 
 ticular a detaile of cruel anions. 
 
 ($.) I have thus far endeavoured to 
 account for Jofephus's filence in the way of 
 apology for him, and fhould be glad to leave 
 the matter here : but his ftrange way of 
 fpeaking, and that in two (a) places of his 
 works, of an execution at yerufalem about 
 this time, though according to his own ac- 
 count and acknowledgement it was very 
 fevcrc and terrible, will not permit me to 
 conclude here. Suppofing then that that ex- 
 ecution was made on account of difcourfes 
 which happened at Jerufalem upon the ru- 
 mour of the birth of Jefus, I think, that 
 lince Jofephus was determined in the main 
 to vindicate Herod upon that occafion, he 
 was obliged for his own honour to fay nothing 
 of what was done at Bethlehem. The (laugh - 
 
 (a) One of thofe psHages with obfervations upon it may be 
 feen above, p.7 0.-80*. It is thepaflagel referred to Vol.i. p 27^, 
 as defer virig a particular attention. W the reader has not yet 
 obferved it, I would now recommend it to his perufa!. The 
 other palfage will be found toward the later end of §. 1 . of the 
 next chapter to this. 
 
 ter 
 
Chap. II. Gospel History. 197 
 
 tcr of all the infants from two years old and 
 under, of a whole City, town, or village, 
 and the diftridt round about it, whatever co- 
 lours an hiftorian might have put upon it, 
 would have appeared to all mankind, but 
 prejudiced and hardened Jews, an horrid 
 inhumanity. 
 
 4. S t. Matthew's account is confirmed 
 by the teftimony of ancient Chriftian Au- 
 thors. I give one paiTage from Juflin Mar- 
 tyr, who wrote before the middle of the 
 iecond Century. c But, fays he, Herod, 
 
 * when the Arabian wife men did not come 
 
 * back to him as he had defired them, but 
 c according to a command given them re- 
 
 * turned by another way into their own coun- 
 1 try, and when Jofeph together with Mary 
 1 and the young child were gone into Egypt, 
 
 * according to directions given to them alfo 
 ' by a divine revelation, not knowing the 
 ' child whom the wife men had come to 
 ' worfhip , commanded all the children 
 € in Bethlehem without exception to be 
 < killed {a). This was prophefied of byje- 
 1 remiah, the fpirit of God faying by him 
 4 thus : A 'voice was heard in Rama.—- 
 
 ptfym, £>jak>g. Fart. ii. p. 304. Parif. (p. 307. ih'ilb.) 
 
 O 3 This 
 
19 8 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 T h i s is all I offer by way of anfvver to 
 this objection. 
 
 There is however a noted paflage in 
 Macrobius, a Heathen Author, who flourish- 
 ed in the later end of the fourth century, 
 who among other jefts of Auguftus has this; 
 c When he [Auguftus~] had heard that a- 
 c mong the children within two years of 
 ' age, which Herod King of the Jews com- 
 4 manded to be flain in Syria y his own fon 
 c had been killed, he faid : It is better to be 
 f Herod's hog than his fan (a). 
 
 I lay little or no ftreffe upon this paflage, 
 partly becaufe it comes too late, partly be- 
 caule there is reafon to fuppofe Macrobius 
 has been miftaken about the occafion of the 
 jeft. No early chriftian writers have faid 
 any thing of Herod's having had a young 
 child of his own killed in the {laughter at 
 Bethlehem. If ^Auguftus did pafs this jeft 
 upon Herod, it might be occafioned by the 
 death of Antipater, or rather of Alexander 
 and Arifiobulus (b). 
 
 (a) Cum audiffet inter pueros, quos in Syria Herodes Rex 
 Judaeorum intra bimatum juilit inrerfici, filium quoque ejus 
 pecifum : ait, Melius eft Herodis for cum ejfe quam filium* 
 Macrcb. $at. lib. a. c. 4. (£j See Doctor Whitby's An- 
 
 jiot, on Matt ai. 16, ij. 
 
Chap.II. Gospel History. 199 
 
 §. II. An objeftion of the like fort with 
 that we have been confidering,may be made 
 againft St. Luke, who fays, There were pre- 
 fent at that fafon, fome that told him of 
 the Galileans , whofe blood Vdate had 
 mingled with their Sacrifices. It has been Jf*"" 1 ' 
 thought ftrange by fome, that Jofefkus has 
 made no mention of this event. 
 
 In anfwer to this obje&ion, I (hall trans- 
 cribe a paffage of Jofefhus. * Judas the 
 1 Galilean introduced a fourth fed among 
 ' the Jews. In all other things they agree 
 ' with the Thari/ees, but they have an in- 
 
 * vincible love of liberty, and acknowledge 
 c God alone their Lord and Governour. Nor 
 € can any kind of death, or any punimments 
 ' of their friends and relations make them 
 
 * call any man Lord. As many have been 
 c witnefles of their immoveable firmneffe, 
 
 * I (hall fay no more upon this head : Not 
 1 out of a fear, left my accounts fhould be 
 1 thought incredible, but rather becaufe it is 
 1 not eafy fully to reprefent their contempt 
 < of all kinds of fufferings (a). 
 
 (a) 'Ov 'f> atebiKct \u* lie, axirUv u7?oto,<p6vj n r Xtyouiwm 
 
 $)i%ojlent tw Tct}M.7rapuit tk #Ay«$v©- a 6 Aay©- ct^nynren* 
 jinfia.L. 1 8. Q. i. §. 6. 
 
 4 ¥m- 
 
ao o The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 Perhaps the Galileans mentioned by 
 St. Luke were fome of the followers of the 
 before mentioned yudas. jofephus fays he 
 has emitted the greateft part of thefufFerings 
 of that Sed. I think it is not difficult to 
 gueffe the reafon. Judas's principles were 
 very popular among the Jews, but in the 
 opinion of the Romans they were criminal, 
 as being inconfiftent with Subje&ion to their 
 government. And it was next to impoflible 
 for Jofephus to give a particular account of 
 all tranfa&ions in Judea relating to this mat- 
 ter, without offending the Jews his country- 
 men on the one hand, or the Romans on the 
 other. 
 
 But whether the Galileans mentioned 
 by St. Luke were men of this principle is not 
 certain, nor is it material. For though they 
 were not, the paflage juft tranferibed from 
 rtrfephus may fatisfieus, that many remark. 
 "" able events have been omitted by him up- 
 on fome account or other. 
 
 vmm 
 
 Chap. 
 
Chap. III. Gospel Histohy. aoi 
 
 Chap. III. 
 
 An obje&ion againft the Fifteenth 
 year of the Reign of Tiberius 
 compared with the age of Jefus 
 at his Baptifm. 
 
 £. I. The Ob;, ftated. §. II. The firft 
 Solution : That St. Luke, by the fif- 
 teenth of Tiberius, might intend the 
 fifteenth of hzs Proconfular power, not 
 of his fole empire after the death of 
 Auguftus. §. III. The confidence of 
 other notes of time in the Gofpels 
 with this Suppo/ition. §. IV. The 
 fecond Solution : That the age of thir- 
 ty years afcribed to Jefus at his bap- 
 tifm may be tinderftood with latitude. 
 
 T. Luke fays; Now in the fif- 
 teenth YEAR OF THE REIGtf 
 of Tiberius Cesar, Pontius 
 ^Pilate being governour of *Judea.— -the word 
 
 of 
 
h 
 
 — V. 21, 
 
 aox The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 of God came unto John the fon of Zacha- 
 *Lukeiu. r/as in the wildemeffe *. — Now when all 
 the people were baptized, it came topaffe, 
 that Jefus alfo being baptized, and praying 
 the heaven was opened ': And the Holy 
 Ghoft defccndid in a bodily Jhape like a dove 
 upon him, and a voice came from heaven, 
 whi h faid<> Thou art my beloved Son, in 
 thee 1 am well pleafed. And Jefus himfelf 
 
 -—BEGAN TO BE ABOUT THIRTY YEARS OF 
 AGE. 
 
 Against this account of St. Luke this 
 objection may be formed. St. Matthew fays 
 exprefly, that Jefus was born in Bethlehem of 
 judea in the days of Hi rod the king. But, 
 though Jefus was born but a month or two 
 before the death of Herod, he would be at 
 left thirty one years of age at his baptifm. 
 But if Jefus was born above a year, much 
 more, if above two years before Herod's 
 death, then the age of thirty years here af- 
 cribed to him at his baptifm is abfolutelyin- 
 conlillent with the notes of time mentioned 
 at the commencement of John the Baptift's 
 miniftry : even allowing, that the word of 
 God came to John in the very beginning of 
 the fifteenth year of Tiberius, and that Jefus 
 was baptized a few months after. 
 
Chap.III. Gospel History, aog 
 
 Before I (late this obje&ion at length, 
 I would obferve, that the true genuine mean- 
 ing of thefe words, Refits himfelf (a) be- 
 gan to be about thirty years of age, is not 
 that he then entered the thirtieth year of his 
 age, but Jefus was about thirty years of age 
 when he began his miniftry : or when (b) 
 he thus began to Jhew himfelf publickly. 
 This, I think, is now the general opinion 
 of (c) learned men. So the Greek word of 
 this text is ufed by St. Luke in other places. 
 Thus the High Priefts and others charge 
 Jefus before Tilate, faying, He fiirreth up 
 the people, teaching throughout all Jewry, Lu \ iX ^ 
 beginning 1% ^d^ev©- having be gun] froms- 
 Galilee to this place. St. Peter in the de- 
 bate concerning the choice of an Apoftle in 
 the room of Judas fays : Wherefore of thefe 
 men which have accompanied with us all 
 the time that the Lord Jefus went in and 
 out among us, beginning from the bap- 
 
 (a) K#» uvrlc, h o 'I/jer£$ cotru trZv t^iukcvtcc upx > o[jcti(&> , q>9 s 
 r~. A. (b) Dr. ClarWs Paraphrafe. (r) Lucse 
 
 jnentem Janfenius [Cone. cap. 14.] optime affecutus eft, 
 quam fie cxprimit; Senfus erit y & ipfe J ejus tr at fere tri- 
 gintu annorum, cum jam fafcepto baptifmo aufftcaretur Jeindt 
 munus fuum. Bafnage Anna). Pol. Ecc ant. D.f. n. 28. vid. 
 5c Anton. Cappeil. de coena Chrifti fuprema. Sett. 12. c. 25. 
 MS'Wh'Jion's Jhort view of the harmony, &c. p. 136. 
 
 tifrn 
 
104 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 tifm [c) of John, unto the fame day that 
 ke was taken up from usjmufl one be ordained 
 to be a witnejfe with us of his refiirreEiion- 
 Ach\ 2i I come now to the obje&ion : Au- 
 ~i. gufius died and Tiberius iucceeded him the 
 19th. of Augufl, A.U. 767, Julian year 
 59, A. D. 14. Therefore the fifteenth of 
 Tiberius began the 19th. Jug. A. U. 781, 
 A.D. 28. Herod died (a) before the PaiT- 
 over in A. U. 750, Julian year 42, or eife 
 before the Paflbver in A. U. 751, Jul. year 
 43. If then John the Baptift began to 
 preach in the beginning of the fifteenth of 
 Tiberius, in the later end of A. U. 781, 
 and Jefus be fuppofed to have been bapti- 
 zed by John a few months after, on the 6th 
 of January of the year following, viz. A.U* 
 782 ; Jefus muft have been in the 3 2d. year 
 of his life, if Herod 'died in the Spring A.U. 
 751, and if Jefus was born the 25th *De- 
 cemb. preceeding, viz. A. U. 750. But if 
 Herod died A.U. 750, and Jefus was born 
 the 25th c Decemb. before, viz, A. U. 749, 
 then he would be at his baptifm in the 33 d. 
 year of his age. 
 
 (a) 'Ev a, ImXU ^ igiMsv ty* fa^c fi K^<& 'Iwx$, xfixpi. 
 (a) S.e the Appendix. 
 
 Bu? 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History, aoy 
 
 B u x it may be made appear feveral ways, 
 that Jefus was born above a year, probably 
 above two years before Herod died. 
 
 i . T h i s may be inferred from the E van- 
 gelifts themfelves. For it is very probable 
 that Herod lived a year or more after the 
 murder of the infants. The wife men hav- 
 ing worfhiped Jefus, when they were de- 
 parted, Behold the angel of the Lord ap- 
 peared to Jofeph in a dream* faying, arife 7 
 and take the young child and his mother and 
 flee into Egypt, and be thou there un- 
 til I bring thee word : for Herod will 
 feek the young child to deftroy him. When 
 he arofe, he took the young child and hi s 
 mother by night, and departed into Egypt. M , „ 
 And was there until the death of He- 13—15. 
 rod. The direction given to Jofeph by 
 the angel, may afford ground to fuppofe 
 that Joflph was to make fome (lay in E- 
 gypty at left fome months, or more than a 
 few weeks or days: which, from what fol- 
 lows, appears to have been till the death of 
 Herod. 
 
 Moreover St, Matthew fays, that 
 when Herod was dead, Behold* an angel of 
 th- Lord appeared to Jofeph in a dream in 
 E^ypt, faying, Anje, take the young child 
 
 and 
 
ao 6 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 and his mother, and go into the land of 
 Ifrael: For they are dead which 
 
 E TA SOUGHT THE YOUNG CHILDES LIFE. 
 «•— -v. iy> 
 
 ao. I x being known from Jofephus, that 
 
 Antipater died but five days before his fa- 
 ther Herod) it may be inferred from the 
 ufe of the plural number, that Antipater is 
 meant by the angel as well as Herod^ and 
 that he had been concerned in the defign to 
 put Jefus to death, and that his cruel inten- 
 tions were onecaufeof Jofeph's removal out 
 of ^fudea into Egypt. But Antipater could 
 have no influence on his father's counfels for 
 ten months or more before Herod died, as 
 will appear prefently : therefore the murder 
 of the infants happened, moft probably, a 
 year before the death of Herod. 
 
 I t may likewife be concluded from Saint 
 Matthew's account, that Jefus was born near 
 two years before the murder of the infants. 
 For thus he fays : Now when Jefus was 
 born in Bethlehem of Jtidea^ in the days of 
 Herod the king : Behold there came wife 
 men jrom the eaft to Jerufalem, faying, 
 Where is he that is born king of the Jews ? 
 for we have fen his far in the eaft, and 
 Matt. lili are come to worjhip him. — -Then Herod, 
 when he had privily called the wife men 7 
 
 en- 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History. 207 
 
 enquired of them diligently what time the 
 Jlar appeared *. * v. 7: 
 
 The wife men having been to worfhip 
 the child, and departing into their own coun- 
 try v/ithout coming back to Jerufalem, Then 
 Herod when he faw that he was mocked of 
 the wife men^ was exceeding wroth., and 
 jent forth^ and (lew all the children that 
 were in Bethlehem and in all the coajls 
 thereof from two years old and under \ac cord- 
 ing to the time which he had diligently 
 enquired of the wife men f . 
 
 Jesus was born before the wife men came, 
 for their queftion was : Where is he that is 
 born ? They knew he was born, becaufe 
 they had feen his ftar in the eaft. Herod 'en- 
 quired what time the ftar appeared, and flew 
 all the children from two years and under, 
 according to that time. Therefore the ftar 
 had appeared two years before, and Jefus 
 was born at or near that time. 
 
 Nor can the fuppofed diftance between 
 the appearing of the ftar and the arrival of 
 the wife men weaken this calculation. There 
 might be many reafons to hinder their un- 
 dertaking the journey immediately : Poflibly, 
 they apprehended no neceflity of fetting out 
 fooner. For allowing the truth of the fad:, 
 
 that 
 
ao8 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 that they had fccn a ftar by which they un- 
 derftood the birth of a King in Judea, they 
 could not well make any doubt of his living, 
 or of their having an opportunity to wor- 
 fhip him, though they delayed a year or two* 
 But, whatever were the reafons of their de- 
 lay, we have no right to depart from the 
 words of St. Matthew, who intimates very 
 plainly, that it was two years from the ap- 
 pearing of the Star to the time in which. 
 Herod ordered the children to be flain. 
 
 Add thefc two years to the foremen- 
 tioned year which Herod lived after the 
 {laughter of the children ; and it will ap- 
 pear, that according to St. Matthew, Jeius 
 was born three years before Herods death. 
 
 2. I t may be proved from Tertullian that 
 Jefus was born above two years before the 
 death of Herod ^ for he fays, that the cenfus 
 or tax made in Judea, at the time of which 
 Jefus was born, was made (a) by Sentius 
 Saturninus. But Jofepkus allures us, that 
 Quint itius Varus was come into Syria as 
 Succeffor to Saturninus^ before (h) the death 
 of Herod. It may not be eafy to determine 
 exa&Iy from Joftphus the time of Varus's 
 
 (a) Adv. Marc. lib. 4, c. 19. See above P. 181. (b) Antiq. 
 17 c« 5. §. z« 6c alibi* 
 
 arrival 
 
Chap, III. Gospel History. ao<? 
 
 arrival in Syria : But there are in being fomc 
 ancient Coins (#) or Medals of the City of 
 Antioch, the Capital of that Province, that 
 demonftrate the time of his government. 
 One of thefe coins has on the reverfe a figure 
 repreknting the City of Antioch> and the 
 name of Varus with a date in Greek nume- 
 rals xxv. And there are others with the 
 fame figure and infcription, with the nume- 
 rals xxvi, xxvii. The firft of thefe coins 
 allures us, that Varus was in Syria before 
 September A. U. 748. For the Era which 
 the ^Antiochians ufed at that time was that 
 of the A&iac Victory, which was obtained 
 A. U. 723 (JS). The 25 th year of this Era 
 ended the fecond of September A. U. 748. It 
 is therefore manifeft that Jefus was born be- 
 fore September in that year, if Saturninus 
 
 (a) Scripfit ad me Card. Norifius, cxtare in Scrinio iiluftrifTi- 
 mi Marchionis Riccardi nummurn minimae magnitudinis 
 caput Jovis in antica repraefentantem, in cujus pofticu habetur, 
 Eni OYAPOr ANTIOXES2N, mu^cr fedens pede fdper figu- 
 ram Orontis fluminis, tenens dexu a palmam; &. in medio EK. 
 id eft. Anno xxv. Pagi appar. ad Bar. n. 1^6. vid. omnino. 
 Norif. Epoch. Syromaced. Diflsrt. 3. c. 7. 2o MemoireS de 
 1'Academie deslnfcrip. Tom. <,! p. 181. ed. Amft, 
 
 {b) Doclor Adix iuppofes the Anuockian Era of the A6rhc 
 Victory does not begin till A. U. 724, Vid. Diflert. de J. C. 
 Anno & Menfe natali, p. 102. It is not my bufinefs to enter 
 into difpui-e upon this head. The other opinion Teems to me 
 Sioft probable, vid. isorlf. ubi ftipr*. P*gj Apparat. n. 103, 104. 
 
 P made 
 
aio The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 made the Cenfusof which St. Z«^fpeaks, 
 or if it was made in his time. And if it be 
 fuppofed, that Jefus was born on the 25 th 
 day of 'December , then his nativity muft ne- 
 ceilarily be placed as far back as the 25th. 
 Decemb. A. U. 747. 
 
 3 . I expect likewife to be here re- 
 minded of fome things advanced by me in the 
 fitft chapter of this Book 5 and that it will be 
 urged : If the oath which Jofephus fays was 
 taken by all the Jews to Augujlus and He^ 
 rod rclktc to the Cenfus or enrolment whidi 
 St, Luke fpeaks of, then Jefus muft have been 
 born about three years before the death of 
 Herod. 
 
 Possibly the obje&ion may be ftated 
 in this manner. 
 
 I t cannot be lefs than ten months from 
 the commencement of the enquiries made 
 by Herod into the caufe of Pheroras's death 
 and the crimes of Antipater to the death of 
 Herod. When the firft diicoveries were 
 made, t^Antipater was at Rome. Herod 
 lent for him in a very prefling but kind man- 
 ner, diffembling all fulpicions concerning 
 him, that he might not delay to return to 
 Judea. Jofephus fays, that when Antipa- 
 ter returned, he knew nothing of the ac- 
 4 pufations 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History. hi 
 
 cufations which had been brought a°ainft 
 him, though {a) feven months had then 
 palled from the firft difcoverie of his crimes. 
 In a day or two after Antipater's return to 
 Jadea Herod calls a council, in which (J?) 
 he himfelf and Varus, Governour of Syria, 
 prefided. Antipater is brought before them, 
 convi&ed and remanded to prifon. But 
 Herod not daring to pronounce fentence 
 on Antipater without leave from t^Auguftus y 
 Exprefies were fent to Rome with an account 
 of what had pafled. After that thefe meffen- 
 gers were fent away from Judea, a letter 
 was intercepted, which was written to An- 
 tipater by K^lcme a jewifh woman at Rome 
 in the Service of the Empreffe Livia, in 
 which letter were frefh proofs of Antipa- 
 ter s defigns. Hereupon Herod fent away 
 frefh difpatches from Rome. Thefe return 
 to Judea, and bring word, that Acme had 
 been put to death by Auguflus, and that 
 the Emperour left it to Herod to do with 
 Antipater as he thought fit. Soon after 
 this, Antipater was put to death, and in five 
 days after Herod died (c)» 
 
 (a) Keu to« f/j£Tx£y T 3 i\ty%av x} tJJis tTtctvo&z cnXtiovTur 
 fork /up!*; Be Bell, lib I. cap. 31. p. 1034.. v l t* 
 (b) Ibid. cap. 31. (c) Vid. Jofiph. de Ldl. lib.?. 
 cap. 30, — 3 3« Ant. 1. i". cap. 3. 3. 
 
 P z As 
 
z I z The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 A s there was a fccond Ambafly fent to 
 Rome after the trial of Antipater, and this 
 returned before Herod dkd, with an account 
 that Acme had been put to death, upon in- 
 formations they had carried with them to 
 Rome, it is impoflible to aflign lefs than three 
 months for the interval between the arrival 
 of Antipater in Judea and Herod's death, 
 which added to the former [even make^TZ 
 months. 
 
 I x being fuppofed in the firft chapter, 
 that the execution which Herod made in his 
 own family, happened at the fame time 
 with the (laughter of the children at Beth- 
 lehem^ it muft next be confkiered how long 
 time that execution preceded the firft en- 
 quiries into Antipaterh defigns. The fads 
 mentioned by Jofephus in this interval (land 
 thus. 
 
 HEROD having put to death feveral 
 of his courtiers and fervants, calls his friends 
 together, charges *Pheroras*s wife with cre- 
 ating disturbances, and infifts upon it that 
 ^Pheroras put her away. Theror&s loving 
 his wife too well to comply with this de- 
 mand, the two brothers fall out. Vheroras 
 leaves Herod and goes to his Tetrarchy, 
 withal fwearing folcmnly never to come to 
 
 Herod 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History, i 1 3 
 Herod more. About this time, as ir fccms 
 Antipater with his father's confcnt left 
 ^W*^ and \v..a£ to Rome. Soon after 
 'Pheroras was gone home, Herod fell Tick, 
 But though Herod fent for Theroras, he 
 would not come to him. Nbt long after, 
 7 her or as is lick, Herod goes to fee him, they 
 arc reconciled^ Pheroras dies. Herod has 
 him brought to Jerufalem and buried 
 there (^). 
 
 When Pheroras was buried, forne of 
 his fcrvants made applications to Herod y de- 
 firing him to enquire into the manner and 
 caufes of Theroras's death. Thefe enquiries 
 Open a horrid fecneof wickednefle. And it 
 appears, that a confpiracy had been formed 
 by Antipater to ppifon his father Herod j 
 and that he had committed the execution of 
 this defign to Theroras^ arid fcrvants of his 
 own whom he had left behind him when 
 he went to Rorns, and who were to <pbey 
 Pheroras's dire&ions (J?)* 
 
 I t will not be eafie to allot lefs than 
 three months for the facts juft now mentioned 
 in the interval between the execution in 
 Herod's family and the firft enquiries into the 
 
 {a)Jofoh. di Bell, lib.i. cap. 29. §.4. Ant. 17. cap. 3. 
 (b) De Bell. ibid. c. 30. Ant. ibid. 4. 
 
 P 3 caufc 
 
a 14 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 caufe of Vheroras\ death. Three months 
 added to the former ten make thirteen. 
 
 The execution fpoken of by Jofephus 
 and the {laughter of the children mention- 
 ed by St. Matthew being allowed to have 
 happened both at the fame time, the in- 
 terval between the birth of Jefus and this 
 execution is already computed. It cannot 
 be lefs than a year and nine or ten months? 
 that is, near two years; confequently, we 
 have a frefh argument that Jefus was born 
 three years before the death of Herod. But 
 how inconfiftent this is with Jefus being 
 about thirty* years of age in the fifteenth 
 year of Tiberius, appears from what has 
 been faid already. 
 
 Having now ftated thefe objections and 
 given them their full force, as I imagine, 
 before I proceed to offer at a reply, I would 
 make two or three reflexions upon fome par- 
 ticulars contained in them. 
 
 I d o allow, that it appears to me highly 
 probable, that Herod did live a year at left 
 after the flaugliter of the infants. 
 
 But as for Tertulliaris teftimony, that 
 the Tax in Judea was made by Saturninus, I 
 think it is not of much weight 3 fince he is 
 |hc only perfon that has faid this, and he 
 
 flourished 
 
Jhap.III. Gospel History, ris 
 
 flourifhed not till about two hundred years 
 after the event. Befides, though Tertullian 
 was well skilled in the Roman Laws and Cu- 
 floms, he has committed many grofs blunders 
 in hiftory. The reader may fee ieveral of 
 them collected by (a) *Dodwell in hisDii- 
 fertations upon Irenaeus. One of them is the 
 computation Tertullian has made of the 
 time from the nativity of Jefus to the tak- 
 ing of Jerufalem (H) by Vefpafian 5 which, 
 according to him, was not full fifty three 
 years. And in reckoning up the reigns of 
 the Ieveral Emperours he has quite omitted 
 that of Claudius, and allotted not quite ten 
 years to the reign of Nero. He, who could 
 make fuch miftakes in the hiftory of the 
 Roman Emperours, might very cafily be ig- 
 norant who was Prefident of Syria at the 
 time of our Saviour's Nativity. 
 
 Nor ami fatisfied with the proofs offered 
 in thefe objections, that Jefus was born near 
 two years before the flaughter of the chil- 
 dren at Bethlehem. Dr. Whitby (c) quefti- 
 ons whether aVo Ahtus $ z&tuTepa) fhould 
 not be rendered from one year old and ^un* 
 der rather than from two years old and under,' 
 
 («) Differ, iii, §. xiii. (b) Vid. Tertul. adverf. 
 
 Jud. cap. 8. (c) Mattb. ii. i<5. 
 
 P 4 But 
 
a 1 6 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 But let herk fignifie two years, yet I think 
 no concluiion can be made about the 
 precife time of the birth of Jefus from 
 Herod's orders. It is moft likely, that this 
 ftar appeared fome time before the birth 
 of Jefus, and that it was underftood by the 
 wife Men to prefignifie it. Hereby they 
 were prepared tor their journey, and it is 
 highly probable that thefe Wife men came in- 
 to Judea to worfhip this King, as foon a$ 
 they could after they concluded he was born, 
 and that they arrived at Jerufalem in a very 
 few months atter his birth. But fince their 
 enquiry was : Where is he that is born 
 King of the Jews <? Herod, whofe cruelty 
 had in a manner no bounds, orders all chil- 
 dren near Bethlehem to be flain who had been 
 born fince the appearing of the Star, or 
 perhaps even for fome fpace before the 
 time, at which, after an exaft enquiry of 
 the wife men, he perceived it had ap- 
 peared. 
 
 As there appears not to be any proof from 
 St.Matthew 9 that Jefus was born two years, 
 or near two years before the (laughter of the 
 infants 5 fo, I think alfo, that there are no 
 proofs in Jofephas that the Oath taken by 
 
 the 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History. %jy 
 
 the Jewshad preceded two years or near two 
 years the execution made in Herod's court. 
 The Oath and the Execution are related by Jo- 
 fephus both together. The reader is referred 
 to that paffage, as alfo to the charge brought 
 againft Pheroras's wife immediately after 
 that execution was over. A mong other 
 
 things in that charge Herod fays, That fie 
 
 did all fie could to create a difference be* 
 tween him and his brother $ that the fine 
 imp o fed upon the Pharifees had been evaded 
 by her means \ and that in the prefent af- 
 fair nothing had been done without her. 
 This prefent affair I fuppofe to relate to the 
 predictions given cut by the P bar i fees, that 
 God would take away the kmgdome from 
 Herod and his children. The payment of the 
 fine is the laft crime (he is charged with be- 
 fore this affair, which had preceded the exe- 
 cution. It certainly therefore is not a crime 
 of two years (landing. Herod in Co long a 
 time might have found put fome new fault in 
 a woman, he was fo much offended with. 
 We may be pretty well allured from this ac- 
 count, if I miftake not, that this Oath had 
 preceded the faid execution and predictions, 
 {put fome few months only. 
 
 Sup* 
 
2,1 8 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 Supposing then the Execution to be 
 truly dated, in the objedion, at about thirteen 
 months before the death of Herod, we may 
 infer, that the Oath in Jofephus, and the 
 description in St. Luke was made, and that 
 Jefus was born about a year and fix or feven 
 months before Herod's death. 
 
 I f indeed Antipater had been at Rome 
 two years before he was recalled byhisfather, 
 as fome learned men have thought, then this 
 execution mud have been made above thir- 
 teen months before Herod's death ; becaufe 
 it is likely, or rather certain, that Antipater 
 was in Judea at the time of that execution. 
 But I think it is a miftake to fuppofe he had 
 been fo long out of Judea. ^Antipater 
 flayed fome time in Judea after his brothers 
 Alexander and %y£riflobuhis were {a) dead, 
 and took a great deal of pains to defeat and 
 fet afide the advantageous marriages which 
 Herod defigned for their children : He alio 
 entered into cabals with Theroras and his 
 , wife in order to fecure the Succeffion for 
 himfelf. Moreover, Saturninus was got to 
 Rome a good while before Antipater went 
 from home, jofephus fays in his Antiqui- 
 ties, that Antipater having reiblved, if pof- 
 
 (*) Antiq. 17. c. r. 
 
 ' ' fible, 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History. up 
 fible, to haften his fathers death, and being 
 defirous to ftrengthen and (ecure his own in- 
 terefl: that he might reign after him, ' He re- 
 
 * mitted large fums of money to his father's 
 f friend? at Rome, that he might gain their 
 
 * good will, but efpecially that he might have 
 ' the favour of Saturninus the governour of 
 1 Syria, {a) Saturninus is not here called 
 governour of Syria, becaufe he was then 
 a&ually in that Port, for he is manifeftly 
 at Rome s but to diftinguifh him from others 
 of that name, of which there were many. 
 And it appears from the parallel place in the 
 War of the Jews, that one favour which 
 Antipater defired of thefe perfons at Rome 
 who had influence on his father was, that 
 they would write to Herod that his tAnti- 
 pater's] prefence at Rome would be fervice- 
 able to him in the prefent pofture of affairs. 
 Antipater had now fettled all things with 
 Theroras for the poifoning of Herod, as 
 foon as an opportunity offered. Bm Anti- 
 pater, fo long as he ftaid in Judea, could 
 not forbear converfing with *Pheroras and 
 his wife, which was extremely difagreeable 
 
 cuotm iwxc, Kot.dis-ufAiv&'y %^o%oinm^i S^r^wey, rev t«$ 2vf»#s 
 ism* .Atfrv. ibid. p. 750, v.io, 
 
 tQ 
 
xio The Credibility of the Boot II. 
 
 to Herod. l Therefore Antipater {a) con- 
 trived by the intereft of friends at Rome 
 to procure leave for a voyage thither. Thefe 
 writing, that it would be very proper fo? 
 Antipater to be fent to Cefar without de- 
 lay, he {Herodr\ immediately fent him 
 thither, having fur nifhed him with afump- 
 tmous equipage and large fums of money, 
 giving him alfo his Will to carry with him 
 to the Emperour/ 
 
 I t is true, that after Antipater** journey 
 to Rome, mention is made of Saturninus as 
 in Syria : but then it is, becaufe Jofephus re- 
 lates a fad that had happened before Antipa- 
 ter went from Judea. Jofephus, giving 
 an account of what Antipater did at Rome, 
 mentions (£) fome accomplices of Syllaeus 
 fent thither by Saturninus to anfwer for 
 themfelves. But this might have been done 
 by Saturninus fome time before. 
 
 A g a i n, if ^Antipater had been two years 
 out of Judea, Herod, who wanted plaufible 
 reafons to induce him to return, could not 
 have failed to put this, of. his long abfence, 
 
 (a) TIpocyfJtjccTtviTxi, dice, tt sVj t£< 'ItuZixs (piXw, rv.v in 
 "lUc^jurjV "bjr$£v[/jict» eivra. ypccyc&vrw >f> ticsum, oiTv 'AvTi7rarpov 
 viwtpQw'M hoc %%'oviS ?rpos Rowrxpcc,, 6 p ttrt pi^KO-ae, i^issi^ij 
 x. \. de B. l.i. c. 29.5.2. {b) DeB. ibid, §.3. 
 
 Aatiq. 17,-c, 3.5.2 ■ 
 
 into 
 
Chap. III. GospelHistory. rzi 
 
 into his letters, as a very cogent and unex- 
 ceptionable argument, which yet he does 
 not appear {a) to have done. 
 
 I t may be farther argued, that Antipa- 
 ters journey to Rome did not precede the 
 death of Herod two years. The very com- 
 mencement of the enquiries into the death 
 of Theroras could not be above ten months 
 before the death of Herod, as has been 
 fhewn already. A great progrefle had been 
 made in thofe examinations, 'Doris, Anti- 
 paters mother, had been dete&cd and put 
 out of {b) Herod's houfe 5 Mariamne the High 
 Prieft s daughter (c) was alfo put away, and 
 her ton (truck out of a new Will Herod had 
 made. * When thefe things were doing 
 c f a y s Jofephus, B at hy litis Antipatefs freed- 
 c man arrived from Rome, And being put 
 ' to the queftion was difcovered to have 
 c brought with him a frefh quantity of poy- 
 * fon to be given to his [Antipatefs] mo- 
 1 ther and Theroras, that if the former had 
 f failed to difpatch the King they might try 
 I this (d) upon him.' Before Antipater had 
 
 gone 
 
 (/») See the fubftance of thefe letters, Be B. 1. i.e. 31. §.?. 
 Antiq. 17. c. $\§. i» (b) Anti^ 17.C 4,$. 1. ( c ) Ibid 
 (d) 'Ev tutco j ^ BuOvfooi qm 'Vvfjwt umAtvQipoi; 'AvTizretTfit 
 
 '?, 
 
%%i The Credibility of the Book 11 
 
 gone to Rome he had provided (a) poyfori 
 for Pheroras to give his father. It is plain, 
 that when Bathylhis was fent from Rome, 
 Antipater did not know whether theroras 
 had made any ufe of the firft poyion or not, 
 and that he had ftill a full confidence in him. 
 But if Antipater had been gone from Judea 
 two years, and had heard nothing of the 
 cffeft of that poyfon, fuch a delay would 
 have created fufpicions. Moreover this fecond 
 preparation appears to be fent to back the 
 former; fo that we may beaffured,we are to 
 go backward, not years, but only fome 
 months for the true time of Antipater'% 
 leaving c Judea. 
 
 Once more, the firft opening of the en- 
 quiries into the caufes of Pheroras's death has 
 been laid at about ten months before the 
 death of Herod. That Antipater was then 
 but newly let out for Rome, may be inferred 
 from hence. Theroras being dead, Herod 
 had him brought to Jerufalem, honoured 
 him with a funeral, and made great lamenta- 
 tions for him. * This, fays Jofephus y was 
 1 the beginning of forrow to Antipater 
 
 JUMJTp 9§ QspUfCt, lie, U TO TTpOTSpoV fM) U^TOITO & /3otCTiA*6J5, TttTV 
 
 y»v f/jiTct%tigi£ovTo uvr'ov. ibid. §. ?• de B. I • c. 3 1 . §. I. 
 (a) Ant'ifr ibid. §♦ $.De Bell. ibid. c. 30. § 5. 
 
 * though 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History. rz% 
 
 * though (a) he was then (ailed to Rome. 
 1 God requiring of him the blood of his 
 
 * brothers. I (hall give a particular relation 
 
 * of this whole affair, that it may be an ad- 
 monition to all mankind to adhere to the 
 
 c pra&ife of virtue.' If t^Antipater had 
 been then any long time out of Judea, Jo- 
 fephus would have faid, though he was then 
 at Rome, or though he had been fome time 
 there. It is poflible, Antipater might have 
 been gone from home a month or two: 
 but the phrafe here ufed by Jofephus feems 
 to me to import, that there were not yet 
 come to Jerufalem any tidings of <ylntipa- 
 ters arrival at Rome. 
 
 I h o p e it will be excufed, that I have 
 infifted fo long upon this point. The fuppofi- 
 tion, that Antifater \ was gone to Rome be- 
 fore the removal of Saturninus, and two 
 years or more before the death of Herod> has 
 caufed much confufion in the chronology of 
 many learned men about this time. 
 
 There is in Jofephus another paflage 
 not yet obferved by any one upon this oc- 
 cafion, that 1 know of, which may help to 
 determine the time of the execution made 
 
 T«*yg szrt P<y^)j§ mnXiVKOTi xxxav lyinro otfX*, t^ a.&Xtyox,. 
 
 T#w*$ «vtI> Timpm 2? ©iSf, x, a, Antiq- 17. c. 3. §.3. 
 
 by 
 
114 The Credibility of the Boot IL 
 
 by Herod in his court and at jerufalem, and 
 which will confirm my opinion about it. 
 JofephtiSy having given the hiftory of Herod s 
 putting to death his two Sons Alexander and 
 ArijlobuluSy makes divers reflections upon 
 that a&ion. It might have been fufficient, 
 fays he, even (uppofing them guilty of the 
 crimes laid to their charge., to have con- 
 demned ihem to perpetual imprifonment, or 
 to have baniflied them, but to take away 
 their lives was a piece of downright cruelty. 
 
 * Nor does the delay extenuate the crime, 
 c for after deliberation, having been refolved 
 ' at one time and in fufpenle at another, to 
 
 < commit mch a fad, is an argument of a 
 1 bloody difpofltion, and of a mind obfti- 
 f nately bent upon wickednefTe : Which 
 
 * fame temper he fnewed afterward upon 
 
 * another occafion, when he fpared not others 
 1 [or the reft] perfons who feemed to be the 
 
 < molt dear to him of any. The juftice of 
 c their punifliment abates our compafllon 
 
 * for their ruine, but yet his cruelty was*- 
 c like here alfo, in that he (pared not even 
 c them. But of thefe more in courfe (a) 
 c by and by 3 . his 
 
 (a) 'Ev sTriroccrit, 3, £ 7rofe.ciy,i<; p ocy^QivTcc xc>%,kya^ j f*t'Atf~ 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History, rif 
 
 This laft piece of cruelty I take ro mean 
 the execution made by H rod in his court, 
 and which JofepLus relates afterward in the 
 next book of thefe Antiquities. It cannot 
 refer to the death of Antipater, becaufc he 
 is but one ; nor to the defign upon the chief 
 men of Judea fllut up in the Circus, be- 
 caufe they had committed no offenfe, and 
 that defign was never executed 5 nor to the 
 Rabbies ; becaufe they do not appear to have 
 ever been dear to Herod. But it muft be the 
 before mentioned execution, of which I 
 hope the reader has a clear idea. Then 
 H.rod put to death all of his own family that 
 adhered to the things faid by the Tharifees y 
 and to other perfons that appear to have been 
 favourites with him. And it is obfervable, 
 that as in that account Jofphusis pleafed to 
 divert himlelf with thofe executions 5 fo, 
 here alio, even when he is aggravating the 
 cruelty of Herod, he betray es the fame good 
 will toward thofe who then fuffercd under 
 the rage of this inhumane tyrant. 
 
 fjutrctKivviTit Y y #W5 ^ T ' T 2 Xtipovav' ldy,M;<Ti 'j k) rote, kv^c, in. 
 "^yn^of/jivo^ ioi T? 5T£fi<?iei7r&>v cfraq socy.si (piXrurxs, t(f> cic, ro ^ 
 £Uccw t^icrrov tirom crv[/,-ufa'ia% t*$ "a<7rs ; JS'jfj!jivsq, ro j u/ao* 
 cfAoiov 'v,v i ru priori sxwon (ptitrcc[b£*f hi\ip& j vzrif etvrat iiy,<i 
 k<p/\y{tptm' Antiq. 16. c. ult. ad tin. 
 
 It 
 
% 1 6 The Credibility of the^ Ecci II. 
 
 I t would be defirable here to fettle exact- 
 ly the time when thefe two Ions of Hi rod 
 were put to death. Dr. dltix (a) places the 
 council of Berytum, before which they 
 were tried, and by which they were con- 
 demned, in the month ot Alay, A U. 749, 
 about ten months before Herod died. But if 
 Herod died in the Spring A. U. 750, as the 
 Do&or fuppofes, this council is certainly placed 
 by him too late. It is evident from particu- 
 lars infilled on in the objeclion, and ilnce al- 
 lowed or mentioned by me, that it muft have 
 preceded the death of Herod above ten 
 months. Moreover, Saturnimis was one of 
 this council, and if the firft Medal and the 
 cpocha above mentioned be allowed, Sa- 
 turninus was gone from Syria before Sept. 
 748. It may be, however, fuppofed, I think, 
 that this Council was not held long before 
 the removal of Saturninus : And it is cer- 
 tain from the pafiage juft tranferibed, that 
 the execution of the Tharifees and others 
 at Jeriifalem happened fome confiderable 
 time after the death of Alexander and Aru 
 (iobulus. 
 
 {a) — Conventum Berytenfem qui habitus eft in caufa Alex- 
 :ndri & Ariftobuli Maio menfe A. U. 749. ibid. p. 18. vid. Sc 
 p. 1 3 . & alibi. 
 
 If 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History. 227 
 
 I f any fhould objeft, that according to 
 the account I have given of the Oath or En- 
 rolment, that it was owing to the difpleafure 
 of Auguftus zga'wft: Herod,it cannot be placed 
 fo near the end of Herod's reign as I here 
 fuppofe, but muft have happened a confidera- 
 ble time before the removal of Sattirninus 5 
 becaufe Augnjins appears to have been re- 
 conciled to Herod before Sattirninus left the 
 province, and before the Council at Bcrytum 
 in which Alexander and Arifiobulus were 
 condemned : I anfwer, that the enrolment is 
 not placed by me too late at all. It might 
 be refolved upon by Auguftus before, and 
 yet not be executed till zttcr Saturninus went 
 away. And though Auguftus might be in 
 fome meafure pacified, yet he might think 
 fit to have the affeflement made. BefiJes^ 
 though Jofephus fays, that upon the applica- 
 tions Nicolas of T>amafcus had made to 
 Auguftus at Rome, the Emperour was recon- 
 ciled to Herod y that Syllaeus was ordered 
 home, required to pay the money he owed, 
 and give all proper fatisfaction, and was after- 
 ward (a) to be punifhed : Yet it is certain, that 
 
 (a) Kai nty&c, lie, tvto jcsctsVjj Ka<o-#p, &s & ]£ XufocciX xcctu* 
 
 yvZrxi 6xvctrov, Hfafy j hebJ^etrrti^ to ^ cofMFen, ft 
 
 Sy^ajes ccvwri f^rsTo, t*§ JVxa& 5 £ roc %ptx rciq h^oivuKOT.t ^5n« 
 fww, itT& WTtt xo?\xrQ))<rofjijiiio$. Antiq. 16, c. 10. §.p. 
 
 (^ 2 Syllaeus 
 
ai8 The Credibility of the EookIL 
 
 Syllaeus did not give Herod or any oneclfe 
 fatisfadtion. And it may be from thence in- 
 ferred, that Herod was not fully reinflated 
 in Auguftus's favour, for then Syllabus 
 would have been more fubmiffive. J°f e ~ 
 phus relating Antipater's voyage to Rome, of 
 which we have made frequent mention, fays : 
 < Srllaeus the Arabian (a) alfo went thither 
 « at the lame time, not having performed 
 1 any of thole things which Cefar enjoined. 
 1 And Ant ipater accufed him to Q/ir upon 
 € the lame heads he had been before accufed 
 1 of by Nicolas' Prom what has been faid 
 concerning the time of AnUpat'fs journey it 
 appears, that this accufation muft have been 
 brought agairift Syllaeus in the laft year of 
 Herod's life. 
 
 It is evident, that Heed's affairs were 
 not in a good, poflure at this time at Rome. 
 If they had, ^Antlpater could not have made 
 the ftate of them, and the fervice he might 
 do his father there, a pretenfe for his journey. 
 Moreover, Ant'ipater (b) charged Herod 
 with a fum of two hundred talents, laid out 
 
 (a) Tw&6ptJttM T 'AvTlXCLTfU j£ Hv^OCieC, ''A^Vj (AW** *>* 
 
 srptfG-sT<fc|£ Kcatrccp h&xvxfsiypiiw >£ 'AvTiTrctrpoc, ocvth KccTnyo- 
 
 p iX 877* Kittrfltpeg, zrsf; m rp7spov ti>.x.iXcco$. ibid. 1. 1J. C ;.§.i # 
 
 (6) Atccx.-ir.ee, y2» ocvu-Xcv^jato^ oLttyiyiu rcc^avroc, >§ tutu* 
 
 ft/tyi'm frf'-pecris w ij zrpes Zvfaxiov <£?ijj' De JB. 1. C 31. §. £. 
 
 chiefly 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History. 129 
 chiefly, as he pretended, in the caufe againft 
 $'y/Ia. us, his father's great enemy. From all 
 which it is reaionable to conclude, that A 7 /- 
 colas had, in his hiftory, out of regard to 
 his matter andhimlelf, magnified the iucceiTe 
 of his negotiations at Rom?. Nor can it be 
 juftly expected from an Hftorian, tlut, when 
 he comes down to the affairs of his own 
 time, he mould be perfectly indifferent to- 
 ward thole in which he aftcd a part him- 
 telf. 
 
 Having now cleared the way, I would 
 lay down two or three conclufions. 
 
 1. lAPPREHENDit appears from what 
 has been here offered, that there is no ne- 
 cciTiry of placing the birth of Jems above 
 a year and fix months before the death of 
 Herod. If Herzddkd in March A.U. 750, 
 I mould be inclined to place the nativity of 
 Jems in September or Ottober A U. 748. If 
 H rod died in March 751, then the nativity 
 of Jefus might very well be placed in Sep* 
 tember or October 749. As I am not able 
 fully to determine the time of Herod's death 
 I fhali for the future have fame regard to 
 both thefe dates of our Saviour's Nativity. 
 
 2. The account that has been given 
 above of the time of Saturninus's removal, 
 
 CL 3 and 
 
ago The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 and Varus's arrival in the province of Syria 
 does alio incline us to one of thefe dates. 
 It is not improbable, that the oath was taken 
 or the afleficment made much about the fame 
 time that Varus came into Syria. And it is 
 fttppofed by many learned men, that the Ro- 
 man Governours ufually came from Rome 
 into thefe Eaftern Provinces at the later end 
 of the fummer. Ir is certain, that upon the 
 removal of t^Arc/reJaus^hcn Cyrenms came 
 Govemour into Syria, there was an affefie- 
 ment made in Syria and Judea. I am. 
 the rather inclined to think this the time 
 of the Oath, becaufe JofepLus in his hiftory 
 docs not relate it when it was taken, but 
 mentions it only upon occafion of a diftur- 
 bance at Jerufalem which had a connexion 
 with it. And it is obfervable, that he has 
 faid nothing of Varus, nor of the concerns 
 of Syria, till we hear of Varus being zt Je- 
 rufalem when Antipater returned home. But, 
 if thofe Medals are to be relied on, Varus 
 had now been a good while in Syria. There 
 is therefore in Jofphus a long gap in the 
 concerns of Syria, and alio in the publick 
 concerns of Judea from the council at Be- 
 rytum to the Execut'on at Jerufalem. Du- 
 ring this time of Jofephus's filence^ I fup~ 
 
 ppfe 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History, agi 
 
 pofe the affeffement was made. According 
 to thefirftof the Antiochian Medals, Varus 
 came into Syria before Sept. 748. If this 
 be fuppofed the mod likely date of his go- 
 vernment, and if it be alfo moil probable 
 that Herod died A. U. 750, thelc mayftrong- 
 ly difpofe us to place the nativity of Jefus in 
 September ox October 748. 
 
 3. T h e later part of the Summer, or 
 Autumn feafon feems to be the mod likely 
 time of the year for the birth of Jefus. There 
 is no particular reafon to determine us to the 
 25 th of 'December. The very depth of 
 Winter is not a very proper feafon for a lurvey 
 and afleflement, when people are to enter 
 themfclves according to their tribes or fa- 
 milies. The Autumn, when Harveft and 
 Vintage are over, is a time of general leifure. 
 When Jefus was born at Bethlehem, There 
 were in the fame country Jhepherds abiding 
 in the field \ keeping watch over their flocks ImkeUSi 
 by night. Infomevery mild climates fliccp 
 may be abroad in the night time in ^Decern- 
 ber. But it is not very likely, they fhould 
 be fo in thofe countries, where they muft be 
 attended with Shepherds. This circum- 
 ftance is not very favourable to the fuppo- 
 fition, that Jefus wa* born the ajth tOec. 
 C^4 and 
 
agi The Credibility of the BookIL 
 
 and we are at liberty to place it in autumn, a 
 more likely feafon. 
 
 I t is not improbable then, that Jefus 
 might be born (orne time between the mid- 
 dle of Aaguft and the middle of November. 
 Cyrenius, we may fuppofe, came into Judea 
 .^t the time, or loon after the time that 
 Varus came Governour into Syria, and 
 publithed the Decree of Augujius y requir- 
 ing all people to enter themfelves, their 
 dependents, andeftates. Judea was a coun- 
 try of a narrow compafTe, and the affeflement 
 might very well be made in two or three 
 months. Cyrenius coming into the coun- 
 try, and being a man of difpatch in all his un- 
 dertakings, being defirous alfo to haften to 
 Rome to receive the honours decreed him 
 for the Vi&ory over the Homonadenfes, being 
 alio concerned to fet fail before the bad 
 weather came on, appointed all people to 
 enrole thcmfelves w r ith all expedition within 
 a certain limited time, which they did accord- 
 ingly. Ani all went to be taxed every one 
 in his own city. The fhort time appointed 
 for this work may be fairly concluded froni 
 St. Luke's hiftory of it. If the fpace of time 
 allotted for it had been of any confiderable 
 length, it cannot be thought but that Jofeph 
 
 would 
 
 ver. 
 
Chap.III. Gospel History. 233 
 
 would have taken an opportunity to go to 
 Bethlehem fome while before the time of the 
 Virgin's delivery, or elfe have deferred the 
 journey till that was over. There is nor the 
 left hint, that this journey was taken juft at 
 
 this feafon in obedience to a divine admoni- 
 tion. Ic is given us as the pure refult of o- 
 bediencc to this decree of Augujlus. 
 
 We will now lay together a few events 
 of this time, in the order in which it may be 
 fuppofed they happened. 
 
 About a year and fix or feven months 
 before the death of Herod, foon after the ar- 
 rival of Varus in the province of Syria, in 
 Augujl or September , A. U. 743 , or 
 749, Julian year 40, or 41, Cyrenius [or 
 fome other perfon of eminence] came into 
 Judea, an allurement was made there, and 
 in the time of it, ]efus was born at Bethle- 
 hem in the month of September or October. 
 After the term of forty days was expired Jefus 
 was preiented at the Temple at Jerufa!em y 
 and Mary made her offering according to the 
 Law. Whenthefe things were finiihed, they 
 went from Jerufalem and dwelt in fome 
 City of "Judea, poflibly at Bethlehem. In 
 the year following, viz. A.U. 749, or 750, 
 about the beginning of February ', came wife 
 
 men 
 
v.n 
 
 a^4 The Credibility of the Book IL 
 
 mm:, ii. men f rom th e ea jl to Jerufalem, faying, 
 where is he that is bo?n king of the J wi ? 
 They, being guided by the ftar which they 
 had f en in the eaft, we fit and wor [hipped 
 him. After their departure, the Virgin and 
 the child Jeius being now fit for travelling, 
 Jofeph wasadmonifhed by an angel to take 
 the young child and his mother and flee into 
 Egypt, which he did. H.rod foon perceiv- 
 ing from the wife men's not returning to 
 him, that he had been mccked by them, and 
 being much enraged thereat, fent forth and 
 flew alfthe children that were in Bethlehem ', 
 and in all the coafls thereof, from two years 
 old and under, according to the time which 
 he had diligently enquired of the wife men. 
 He alfo put to death at the fame time divers 
 Than fees, and other perfons at Jentfalem, 
 fome of his own family and attendants; who, 
 being before in expectation of the coming 
 of a great Prince who was to rife up from 
 among them, and by the arrival of the wife 
 men had been confirmed in the belief that 
 this event was now at hand, exprelTed them- 
 felves in terms, which Herod and his fon 
 jfntipaterznA. their flatterers termed feditious. 
 Immediately after thefe executions Theroras'$ 
 wife v/as called to an account alfo, as being 
 
 fuppofeel 
 
 T.lC 
 
Chap.IIL Gospel History. r$f 
 
 fuppofed to have entertained the fame prin- 
 ciples and expectations withtheie Tharifees, 
 to whom flic had lately fhewn great favour 
 in paying the fine impofed upon them for not 
 entering themfelves and taking the appointed 
 Oath in the time of the forementioned afifefie- 
 nient. Theroras not fubmitting to the or- 
 ders given him by Herod in council to put 
 away his wife, Herod and Pheroras fell out. 
 Hereupon, in the later end of February, or 
 beginning of March, the fame year Tkeroras 
 retires with his wife to his Tetrarchy. And 
 Antipater having, before (a) this by various 
 practices, and particularly by letters procured 
 from Rome, difpofed his father to confent to 
 his making a Journey into Italy ; and fup- 
 pofing, that by the execution now juft over> 
 all turbulent ipirirs had been awed and peace 
 and quiet might enfue, lets fail for Rome. 
 In the later end of April or the beginning 
 
 (a) The account of Avtipxter's fending letters and prefents 
 to Rome is Antiq. 17. c. 1. §. 1. Of Herod's lafl quarrel with 
 jpheroras, his forbidding AnUpMer to converfe with Rheroras y 
 or his wife, of Antipater's journey to Rome, and Pheroras's 
 retirement is ibid. c. 3. In the IVar, [1. 1. c. 29. §. 1.] 
 Antipater's letters to Rome and his journey are mentioned to- 
 gether : but as his journey is here a To reprefented as the effecl: 
 of advice brought from Rome, it is fuppofed that thefe ictters 
 were fcnt by him fome time before. And Pberoras's retire- 
 pent is the thing next mentioned. 
 
 of 
 
%l& The Credibility of the Book If. 
 
 of May following, Theroras dies, is brought 
 to Jerufalem and buried. No fooner was 
 the Mourning for him over, but his Servants 
 apply to Hsrod to make enquiry into the 
 caufes of his death : and now in the middle 
 of Miy, or foon after, the Examinations 
 into this matter began 5 and though Antipa- 
 > ter was failed from Judea for Rome 1 , and 
 got at a diftance from the place in which 
 juftice ought to be executed on him, and 
 therefore, according to the ordinary courfe 
 of things, it might have been fuppoicd he 
 was in fafety ; yet from this time the divine 
 vengeance began to prepare itfeif again!! him, 
 till at laft it fell upon him for ail his horrid 
 crimes. The evidence was at firfl: obfeure and 
 imperfect, but opened continually more and 
 . more. Herod in his letters to Antipater dif- 
 iembled his refentments, but earner! iyprefled 
 his return to Judea. About the middle of 
 ^Dec ember, ieven months after the flrft en- 
 quiry into the caule of ^herorass death, 
 K^Antipater arrived at Jerufulem : And is 
 tried there before Herod 3 and Varus Prefident 
 of Syria, and condemned to death. Herod 
 however, not daring to proceed to execute 
 the Sentence without exprefs leave from 
 Augujius, fent AmbalTadors to Rome with a 
 
 full 
 
Chap. III. Gospfl History. 237 
 full account of what had pa(Ted, and foon 
 after, a fecond Ambafly, new evidence hav- 
 ing been found after the departure of the 
 former. Thefe Jaft AmbalTadors return to 
 Judea with full power from Auguftus about 
 the middle of March A. U. 750, or 751 : 
 foon after which Antipater was executed, 
 and in five days time Herod himfelf died 3 
 about a year and five or fix months after the 
 birth of Jefus. 
 
 Upon the whole, I prefume it appears, 
 we lie under no neceflity of dating the 
 birth of Jefus before the later end of the 
 year of Rome 748, or 749. We hereby 
 in part abate the objection, as dated above -, 
 but dill we have before us, undoubtedly, a 
 very great difficulty. We will now enquire 
 what can be faid to it. 
 
 §. II. 1. When St. Luke fays, Now in 
 the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius,-- 
 the word of God came unto j)hn y he may- 
 intend fome computation of the reign of 
 Tiberius, different from that of his fole em- 
 pire after the death of Auguftus. It is no 
 unufual thing for the reigns of Princes to be 
 computed from feveral dates. There were 
 two computations of Nebuchadnezzar's 
 reign. For, as Dr. Trideaux obferves, 
 
 « Nabo- 
 
a 3 8 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 c Nahopollafar King of Babylon being old 
 1 and infirm took his Ton Nebuchadnezzar 
 ' into partnerfhip in the Empire, and fent 
 ' him with an army into thofe parts [Syria 
 c andPaleftine']. And from hence xhzjewijb 
 1 computation of the years of Nebuchadnez- 
 t zar's reign begins.— But according to the 
 ' Babylonians his reign is not reckoned to 
 * begin till after his father's death, which 
 1 happened two years afterwards. And both 
 1 computations being found in fcripture, it 
 ' is ncceflary to fay fo much here for the re- 
 ' conciling of them (a).' And there were 
 two or three ways of computing the reign 
 of (b) Cyrus. 
 
 B u t to come nearer to our time, there 
 were many computations of the reign of 
 (c) Auguftus. Some computed the begin- 
 ning of his reign from the year in which 
 Julius Cefar was killed, as (d) Jofephus : 
 who fays ; Auguftus reigned fifty feven years 
 fix months and odd days. Some from the year 
 after, and reckoned his reign fifty fix years- 
 Others computed from the year in which the 
 
 (a) Conn. Part. i. p. 6o. (b) MarJhaWs Treatife 
 of the 70 weeks, p. 44. ( c ) Vid. Petav. Rationarium 
 Temp. Part z. 1. 3. c. iy. pagi appar. n.66 73. 103. 114, 
 
 (d) Anu^ 18. c.i.§. *. Dt Bell, z, c.o. §. 1, 
 
 victory 
 
Chap. III. Gospfl History, 139 
 vi&ory was obtained at (a) AEtium> and 
 fay he reigned reigned forty four years > 
 others from the year after, as Ttolomee, in 
 his Canon, and St. Clement (b) of Alexan- 
 dria 3 and give him only forty three years. 
 And Herod reigned thirty four years from the 
 death of Ant?gonus y thirty kven from the 
 time he was declared King of Judca by 
 the (c) Roman Senate. 
 
 2. There feems to be very good reafon 
 to conclude from divers paiTages of the Ro- 
 man hiftorians and the moft ancient Chriftian 
 writers, that there were two different com- 
 putations of the beginning of Tiberiush reign, 
 one from the time he was made Collegue 
 with Auguffus, and the other from his fole 
 empire after the death of Augnjlus. 
 
 Several very learned men and very 
 eminent chronologers (d) are of opinion, 
 that St. Lake intends the former of thefe 
 
 (a) Atque abeotemporeexercitibuscomparatis> primum cum 
 M, Antonio, Marcoque Lepido. dein tantum cum Antonio pec 
 duodecim fere annos, novilTime per quaruor 6c quadraginta 
 folus Rempublicam tenuit. Suet on. in Augufi. c. 8. vid. Dio* 
 j. fi, (b) Srrom. p. 3 39- A Edit. Pari/. 
 
 (c) Joftph. de R. 1. cult. §. 8 1. Antiq. 17- c. 8.$. 1. 
 
 (J) Herwartus in nova 6c vera chronolog'a cap. 24S. Ujfer^ 
 Ann. A. M. 4015. Jomn. Citric. DiiTertatio de Ann. vitas, 
 Chrifti. Trideaux Conn. Part.ii. Book 9. A.D.xii. Vagi Critic; 
 in Baron. A. Chr. 1 1. 71* 
 
 two 
 
^4° The Credihility of the Book II. 
 
 two computations. I mall give a brief ac- 
 count of the grounds there are for this fup- 
 pofition , taken chiefly from Doftor Tagi 5 
 who appears to have beftowed a great deal 
 of pains upon this argument , and mull: be 
 allowed to have treated it with great accu- 
 racy and judgment. 
 
 (1.) That Augaftus did in part Jay 
 afide government fome time before he died, 
 may be inferred from the words of an uncer- 
 tain author of a Panegyrick, in which, in the 
 name of the City of Rome he diflwades 
 Maximianus Herculeus from refigning the 
 Empire. c Is it fit, fays ke> that you mould 
 c now give your felf a difcharge, and do that 
 c fo foon,which Angujlus did not do till after 
 1 the feventieth year of his age, and the fif- 
 4 tieth of (a) his reign?' 
 
 (2.) Several of the Roman hifto- 
 rians have exprefly mentioned Tiberius^s 
 being taken into partnerftiip in the Govern- 
 ment with Augujlus. 
 
 (a) Quoufque hoc Maximiane, patiar, me quati, tequiefcere, 
 mihi libertatem adimi, te uiurpare tibi illicitam mifiionem? 
 An quod Divo Augufto poft ftptuaginta aetatis, quinquaginta 
 imperii, non licuit anno?, tarn cito licuit tibi I Panegyr. cap. 1 1. 
 laudat. a Vftgio. Critic, A, Qb, 1 1. n. iii. 
 
 VELLE1US 
 3 
 
Chap. III. GospelHistory. 241 
 
 VELLEIUS TATERCULUS, who 
 lived in the reigns of thefe two Emperours* 
 fays, c that at the deiire of Auguflus there 
 ' was a lawpaffed by the Senate and People 
 
 * of Rome, that Tiberius might have equal 
 1 power with him in all the provinces and (a) 
 1 armies 3 . Suetonius fays, 4 There was a 
 ' Law made, that Tiberius fhould govern 
 
 * the provinces jointly with Auguflus, and 
 € make the Cenfus with (b) him 3 . Tacitus 
 fays * That Tiberius was made collegue in 
 
 * the Empire ("with ^Auguflus') taken into 
 € partnerfhip with him in the Tribunician 
 
 * power, and recommended ( c) to all the 
 
 armies*. 
 
 (a) Cum res Galliarum maximae molis, accenfafque plebis 
 Viennenfium diflenfiones, coercitione magis quam poena mol- 
 lifTet, & Senatus Populufque Rom. ('poflulante patre ejus) 
 aequum ci jus in omnibus provinces exercitibufque efTet. 
 
 quam erat ipfi, decreto complexus efler. in urbem re- 
 
 verfus, jampridem debitum, fed continuatione bellorum dila- 
 tum, ex Pannoniis Dalmatiifque egit triumphum. Vellei. lib ii. 
 cap. 12,1. 
 
 (6) A Germania in urbem poll biennium regreflus, trium- 
 phum quern diflulerat egit Dedicavit 8c Concordiac 
 
 aedem : item Pol;ucis 2c Caftoris, fuo fratrifque nomine, de 
 manubiis. Ac ncn multo poft lege per CcfT. lata, ut pro- 
 vinces cum Augufto communiter adminiftrarct; fimulque 
 cenfum ageret, condito iuftro in lilyricum profe&us eft. Suet, 
 in Tiber, cap. 20. 1 1. 
 
 (c) Drufoque pridem extincto, Nero folus e privignis erat : 
 
 \llic cuncli vergere: fiiius. collega. imperii, confors tribunitiae 
 
 R poteftatij 
 
%^% The Credibility of the Book. II. 
 
 1 armies'. Andthereare in this laft mentioned 
 (a) Hiftorian frequent references toTiberius's 
 pannerfhip in the empire with Auguftus. 
 
 I must be allowed to be particular in 
 the account of fome things faid by *Dio. In 
 his hiftory of the affairs A. U. 765, A.D. 
 13. he fays: ' Auguftus (b) now advanced 
 € in years, recommended in a writing Ger- 
 4 manicus to the Senate, and the Senate to 
 c Tiberius. He did not however read the 
 « writing himfelf (not being able) but Ger- 
 c manicus, as he had been wont to do. — 
 < But yet he did not lay afide the care of 
 ' the public.'- Under the next Year, A. U. 
 766, A. D. 13. the fame hiftorian lays: 
 « ^Augtftus then accepted (V) for the fifth 
 
 poteftatis adfumitur, omnifque per exercitus oftentatur. Tacit. 
 An. lib. 1. cap. 3. 
 
 (a) Etenim Auguftus, paucis ante annis, cum Tibeno Tri- 
 bur.iciam potefratem A Patribus rursum poitularet, &c. 
 id. ibid. c. 10 Verfae inde ad Tiberium pieces. Et ille varie 
 differebat, de magnitudine imperii, fua modeftia ; foiam Divi 
 Augufti mentem tantae molis capacem: fe in partem curarum 
 vocatum, experiendo didicifle, quam arduum, — iegendi cuncta 
 onus. ibid, c.-i 1. 
 
 (b) 'O j on 'Avywros Ixtivov rs, hi f$ «ri yrtgaq m, ry /SaA*j f 
 & tuvtw t« Tij&tgia KccgcixczrihTo' knyva j to fiifit.iov &k ccvilq 
 (£ */ocp oioc, Ti W yiyavttrKuv) «&/&' rzgp&yixcs, v$irtg lioofct, 
 
 . g {JUiVTOl <£ TCL/&M nrloV Ti XCl£* TZTO ohuKU. Dio. l.$6. 
 
 p. «87. B.C. (c) Ty>v t£ TTgorouriav t KonaJv rw 
 
 &KiTW, t»» Triijjzrrw eatm o% i Auya$-«s £A«*/3s, t§ rwTtfizgiu rvp 
 ifysclcw TV o^ntowysKw uvfai *&**. ibid. p. )28, B. 
 
 time, 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History, 243 
 
 * time, though unwillingly, the government 
 
 * of the flatefor ten years, and renewed alfo 
 c the Tribunician power to Tiberius? He 
 fays alfo, ' That Auguftus (a) on account 
 c of his great age (which like wife hindered 
 c his coming to the Senate, except veryrare- 
 ' ly) defired he might have twenty annual 
 
 counfellors.-— And a decree was paffed, that 
 c whatever was ena&ed in council by him, 
 
 * together with Tiberius, and thofe faid 
 < counfellours, and the Confuls in being, and 
 ' the Confuls eled, and his Grand fonsadop- 
 ' ted by him, and any others whom he 
 « mould call to his council, fhould be ratified, 
 
 * and deemed of the fame authority, as if 
 1 ena&ed by the authority of the whole 
 ' Senate/ This mention of Tiberius, and 
 of him only by name , in this Decree of 
 the Senate, next after Auguftus, appears to 
 me remarkable. I do not obferve that any 
 of thefe pafiages of T>io have been quoted 
 by Vagi. For what reafon he omitted them 
 I do not know. He has however infifted 
 
 (</) Kot« <rtY///38Aa$, iWo § yvjoac, (b<p S5T££S^ 1$ to fatevrvfw 
 
 fTi, KM* a-7tuvtcjrct.ru., vvvttpoiTu) n>co<ri* stjj<ti&$ yrv.ruvo r$ 
 
 xpo<rtyvL$l<r6», xuvQ' c<ru ccv uvtu yjiToc tz y T</3£p/s £ fiizr 
 
 iXiWUV, T TI OC.H VZoUTtVOVTUVy »£ T £5 TXTO 'tWnCiOUy'AiySi.V, j 1 
 
 T£ syyovuv uvth T nariTav cr^ovori, T Tt u?a&>v otrac, cm zx.ci<roTt 
 TTzcTTTupuXufir), (z,aMvoyLiiv(t) o^oi^y xvgioi, «; xj xot<ry TV t yigvviet 
 *ifi<r*,yTet, uvea, ibid, C. D. 
 
 R 2 upon 
 
*44 27^ Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 upon another paffage of this hiftorian taken 
 from the preceding year, viz. A. U. 764. 
 A.D. n. But his argument from it feems 
 to me to be founded upon a forced and arbi- 
 trary conftru&ion of T^io : and therefore 
 I content my felf with referring the reader 
 for it to (a) him, and (6) Monfieur LeClerc, 
 who alfo lays a ftreiTe upon it. 
 
 Once more, *Dio fays, that upon the 
 death of ^Auguftus c Tiberius immediately 
 ' (c) fent away letters from No/a to the ar- 
 e mies and all the provinces, as Emperour: 
 
 * but yet did not call himfelf fo, though 
 € that, with other titles, had been given him 
 ' by a decree'. 
 
 (3.) There is a particular fad related 
 of Tiberius by feveral Hiftorians, faid to be 
 done by him when Prince, which yet muft 
 have been done before Auguftus died, 
 Vlinie fays, that Tiberias was much given to 
 drinking : c And that it was thought, that 
 
 * for this reafon Lucius Pifo had been chofen 
 « by him to be Prefed of Rome, becaufe he 
 1 had continued two days and two nights 
 
 (a) A D. ij.n. 13, 14, 15-. (b) Ubi fupra. 
 
 (c) ToiXTOS XV $ Tiq 6)V, 2$ Ti TU <rfCCT07Ts£cC, 7^ 1$ TU \hvjy 
 
 avTo'toiTap hvtx.1' •y'4<pt<r(liiv y> kvru y^ piTec, T u?ka>v ovcyjocruVy 
 
 £* &Zkto. Dio. I.57. p. 601. D. 
 
 * drinking 
 
Chap. III. Gospfl History, i^ 
 
 c drinking with him (a) when Trince*. 
 Suetonius fays, that Tiberius in his firft cam- 
 paines, was rr . ... .J.cd on for hisexcefie 
 
 in drinking, and that, c Afterwards when 
 c Prince, in the very time of the Correction 
 c of the public manners he fpent a night and 
 f two days in eating and drinking with 
 <■ Vomponius Flaccus and Luchis Vifo, to the 
 4 former of which he gave immediately the 
 
 * province of Syria, and to the other the 
 
 * prefecture of the City (by. 
 
 I t may be worth while to obferve with 
 Tagi, that thefe two writers who tell us the 
 ftory of this drunken bout of Tiberius, and 
 the confequences of it, feem not to have 
 had their accounts from one and the fame 
 fource. They differ from each other in two 
 
 (a) Tribus congiis (unde 8c cognomen ill} fuit) epotis 
 
 uno impetu, fpeclante miraculi gratia Tib. principe, in Senecla 
 jam fevero atque etiam faevo alias, fed ipfa juvema ad merum 
 pronior fuerat: eaque commendatione credidere L.Pifonem 
 urbis Romae curae ab eo dele&um, quod biduo duabufque 
 nodlibus perpotationem continuaflet apudipfum jam prjncipem. 
 Ylin. Nat.Hift. lib. 14. cap. 21. 
 
 (b) In caftris tiro etiam turn, propter vini aviditatem pro 
 Claudio, CaUius, pro Nerone Mero vocabatur . Poftea Prin. 
 ceps in ipfa publicorum morum correclicne cum Pomponio 
 Flacco 8c L. Pifone no&em continuumque biduum epulando 
 potandoque confumpfit : quorum alteri Svriam provinciam, 
 alteri praefe&uram uibis confeftim detulit. Suet* in Tib. 
 cap. 42. 
 
 R s 9$ 
 
146 The Credibility of the Book XL 
 
 or three particulars : One fays, that this 
 piece of exceffe lafted two days and two 
 nights 5 the other, one night and two days. 
 ^Plinie mentions only the preferment of 
 5P//0, Suetonius adds that of Flaccus alfo. 
 But they both agree in faying, that Tiberius 
 was then Trince ; and Suetonius adds a very 
 particular circumftance as to the time, that it 
 was during the corre&ion of the public man- 
 ners, which may very naturally lead us to 
 what he had faid of the Law patted, that 
 Tiberius fhould govern the provinces jointly 
 with Augujius and make the Cenfus with 
 him; one part of which at Rome was the 
 Corre&ion of manners. 
 
 But we muft enquire fomewhat more 
 particularly into the time of this ad of in- 
 temperance. It may be eafily inferred from 
 Tacitus : who relating the affairs of the 
 year in which ^Domithis ^yienobarbus and 
 M. Farms Camillus were Confuls, fc. A. U. 
 78s> A. D. 32. fays: c Then Tifo had the 
 * honour of a public funeral by decree of 
 f the Senate, having behaved in his office to 
 f general fatisfa&ion for (a) twenty years 3 . 
 
 (*) Dein Pifo viginti per annos pariter probatus, publico 
 funeic ex decreto Senatus ceiebratus eft. Tacit. Ann. lib. vi. 
 gap, 11. 
 
 f If 
 
Chap. III. GospelHistory. 247 
 
 If we go back twenty years, we are brought 
 to the 1 2th year of the Chriftian Era, and the 
 765th of the City 5 in which year, accord- 
 ing to Tacitus, Ptfo muft have been prefeft 
 of Rome, which is two years before the 
 death of Auguflus. 
 
 There are however fome objections to 
 this ftory, which muft be confidered before 
 we leave it. Several (<*) learned men would 
 read in Tacitus X. inftead of XX. But to 
 this Do&or Tagfs reply is fufficient, that 
 this emendation is without the authority of 
 any Manufcripts. It is likewife obje&ed, 
 that Yomponius Flaccus was not Prefect of 
 Syria till long after the year of the City 765 : 
 confequently, neither was Vifo then made 
 Prcfeft (b) of Rome. Dr. Tagi (?) allows 
 very readily, that Tomponhis did not at this 
 time go Prefed into Syria ; but then he 
 gives feveral inftances of men who have been 
 nominated governours of provinces, who 
 yet never went into them 5 one is Aelius 
 
 (a) Lipfius in Joe. Norif. Cmot. Til.DiJf. ii. p. 3 24. 
 
 (a) S.d hoc amplius ex Suetonio colliges, faftum Pifonem 
 Praefectum, fub idem tempus quo Pomponius Syriae Praetor. 
 Il!e autem Syriae non ante annum 773 praeponi potuit ( Maeiiam 
 enimprovinciamadminiflrabar,A.772-.utiex Tacit.lib. ii.chrum:) 
 non ergo tot annos Pifo Praefc&us uibi. Lipfius ubi fupra. 
 yi(i. etiam Norijium ibid. 
 
 (r) A.Chr v 11, n. v. 
 
 R 4 Lamia, 
 
448 The Credibility of the BookIL 
 
 Lamia, who by this very fame EmperoUr 
 had been nominated prefed of the farhe 
 province likewife, namely of Syria, Jbut yet 
 never went thither. The fad is taken no- 
 tice of by (a) Tacitus, and (b) T>io y which 
 laftobferves, that this was a common pradife 
 with Tiberius. Tacitus has mentioned 
 another like inftance in the reign of Nero (c). 
 Another objedion againft Tifrfs 
 being made prefed of the City A. U. 76$) 
 is this: Suetonius fays, that this exceffe of 
 Tiberius was committed during the public 
 corredion of manners : By which he has been 
 fuppofed to refer to Tibcrius's being made 
 Cenfor with Augufliis. But Cardinal Norls 
 objeds, that the Cenfus was not made by 
 Augujtus y A. U. 76s, but 767. And 
 
 (a) Extrcmo anni [A. U. 786. A. D. 33.] Mors Aclif 
 Lanrae funere cenlbrio celebrata, qui adminiftrandae Suriac 
 imagine tandem exfolutus, urbi praefuerat. Tacit. Ann.lib.v]. 
 
 (b) Tatfi T\n<rmet rev xoXixp%ot Titevrvccivra eyuiotrik rctty^ 
 stings, it) AgKioi) {"legend um Aapicv, id eft LamiamJ kvr' 
 czvrS rayjiav cc^tiMro, ov xpoTrxXctt ry rpcLnoi (legendum Yvgiccl 
 Muretus in Tacit. An. v!«) :T£©f«|#$ x.scTsi'%sv ou ry 'Pay^y. 
 tzto j ^ l<p' srifav xoftsav sttoisi, *ey» /£", pyhvos kvrm J'toutivos, 
 Xoya'j (Tfj, 7iyj&v livrae, TrgcvTrciyf&zyos' Dio.lib.^8. p. 633 D. 
 
 (c) Syria P. Anteio deftinata, St variis mox artibus elufus, 
 ad pcflremum in urte retentus eft. Tacit. Ann* lib. 13. 
 capi 22. 
 
 M 
 
Chap.IIL Gospel History. %^ 
 
 (a) he is of opinion, that the public correction 
 of manners which Suetonius here lpeaks of 
 intends the Edicts which Tiberius publiflied 
 againft Luxury A. U. 77 5* For my own 
 part, I cannot fee, but that the words of 
 Suetonius may very well refer to the time 
 in which Tiberius was decreed Cenfor with 
 Auguftus, which might be done A. U. 765 : 
 though the Cenlus was not made, or at left 
 not finiflied, till the year 767. 
 
 But that this correction of manner s y 
 which Suetonius here fpeaks of, is not that 
 which he has himfelf mentioned in another 
 {b) place i and which Tacitus fays was made 
 A. U. 775 (f)> ma y be made evident from 
 two or three paffages not particularly infilled 
 on by Vagi. Seneca fays, that Tiberius 
 gave fecret dire&ions of importance to Pifo y 
 when he went into Campania, at which 
 time there were divers uneafineffes and dif- 
 
 (4) Bed Suetonius li cenfor em Tiberium fignificaret, annum 
 U.C. 767. defignaifet, quo ipfa fublicorum morum correftio a 
 cenfoiibus peradra eft. Itaque deiignat tern pus, quo Tiberius 
 publicis edi&is urbano luxui Modum ponebat, A.U. 775. ibid. 
 p.314. vid. eund.p. 329. (b) In Tib. cap. 34. 
 
 (c) Caius Sulpicius, D.Haterius confules fequuntur. Intur- 
 bidus externis rebus annus, domi fufpefta femitate adverlum 
 luxum. Ann. L, iii. cap. 52. 
 
 contents 
 
i so The Credibility of the Boot II. 
 
 contents in the City (a). This Journey of 
 Tiberius was made in the bednnine of the 
 year before that, in which the Edicts were 
 publiflied for the fuppreiTing of luxury, 
 namely in the year of the City 774, as ap- 
 pears from Tacitus b). It is plain there- 
 fore, that Ttfo was Prefect of Rome in 774, 
 and in the very beginning of it : and it may 
 be fuppofed, that Tiberius had had consider- 
 able experience of Pifo's fidelity and ability 
 in that poft before that, fince he relied upon 
 him in a very critical conjuncture. 
 
 Cardinal Noris objects [(;•) farther : It is 
 true Tiberius had proconfular power in the 
 provinces two years before Auguftus's death : 
 all the authority he had in the city was ow- 
 ing to his Tribunician power, but that in- 
 cluded 
 
 (a) L. Pifo, urbis cuftos, ebrius ex quo femel fa&us eft, 
 fair, majorem partem noelis in convivio exigebat. ufque in 
 horam fextam fere dormiebat : hoc erat ejus marunnum. 
 Officium tamen fuum, quo tutela urbis continebatur, diligen- 
 tifiTime adminiftravir. Huic & Divus Auguftus dedit fecreta 
 mandita, cum ilium praeponercr. Thraciae, quam perdomuit, 
 & Tiberius proficllcens in Campaniam, cum multa in urbe 8c 
 fufpe£ta relinqueret £c invifa. Seneca ep. 83. 
 
 (b) Sequitur Tiber ii Quartus, Drufi fecundus confulatus. 
 ejus anni principio Tiberius, quafi firmandae valetudini, in 
 Campaniam concefiir : longam &: continuara abfentiam paula- 
 tim meditans. Tacit. Ann. lib. iii. cap. 31. 
 
 (c) His accedit, Tiberium in provinces biennio ante mortem 
 Augufti imperium obtinuiile 5 intra urbem vero non habuifle, 
 
 nifi 
 
Chap. III. Gospfl History, aj-i 
 
 eluded only a right of interceding or forbid- 
 ding, but could not give the power of ap- 
 pointing a Prefect. 
 
 I think it is undoubted, that Tiberius 
 might call the Senate by virtue of the Tribu- 
 nician power (a), and it is likely do feveral 
 other things. But there is no need of con- 
 tending about this point. Perhaps Tiberius 
 did not nominate and appoint Vifo Prefect 
 of the City : He might however recommend 
 him fo effectually to Augnftus, his Collegue, 
 that he might appoint him. Dr. Vagi ob- 
 ferves, that Tlinie, fpeaking of this matter* 
 ufes the word choojing-, not appointing (b). 
 
 I imagine, that this fact is now clear- 
 ed up and vindicated againft the feveral ob- 
 jections which have been made to it, and that 
 Pifo was appointed or chofen to be Prefect of 
 the City of Rome by Tiberius, then Prince, 
 two years before the death of Auguftus> 
 namely, in A. U. 76$. 
 
 But before I quite leave this ftory, I 
 would ftrengthen the argument founded up" 
 
 nifi jus intercedendi ob tribuniciam poteftatem. Quarc unus 
 Auguftus Urbis praefe£U defignandi poteftatem habebat. Norif, 
 ibid. p. 3:4. 
 
 (a) Vid. Uffer. Ann, A. M. 4or$\ & 4017. 
 
 (b) Fique^ommendationecredidere L. Piibnem Urbis Romac 
 <pu£ae ab eo deUclum. vid. ftp. Cm, ad an. Ch, 1 1. 11,17. 
 
 99 
 
ijx The Credibility of the Boole IL 
 
 on it by a remark or two upon the Title of 
 Trince given here to Tiberius by Plinie 
 and Suetonius. 
 
 I t is well known that Trince was the 
 foft title, which Augufius chofe rather than 
 that of (a) King or Dictator. This title 
 therefore, when ufed abfolutely, is equiva- 
 lent to Emperour : And *Dio fays, that Ti- 
 berius had the title of Emperour given him 
 by a decree, before Augufius died, as has 
 been obferved already. Moreover this title 
 of Emperour is frequently given by Roman 
 and Greek Authors to Titus and Trajan on 
 accounts of their tribunician and proconfu. 
 lar power, which they enjoyed, the former 
 in the life-time of his father Vefpajian, the 
 later, of Nerva. Doctor Pagi thinks, this 
 title of Emperour which was given to thefe 
 Collegues in the Empire was founded parti- 
 cularly on the perpetual proconfular power 
 in all the provinces (J?). But however that 
 
 («) Qui cunfia difcordiis civilibus felTa, nomine Princif is 
 fub imporium accepit. Tacit. Ann. lib. i. cap. i. Non regno 
 tamen, neque di&atura, icd principis nomine conftitutam 
 Rempublicam. UA&A. cap. 9. (S) Titus enim > 
 
 quemadmod urn & ante cum Tiberius, ac peft eum Trajanus, 
 imperii Collega fuit, idecque i^nperatoris titulo exornatus. 
 Imperii collegae Tribunicia potcftite, & imperio proconfulari 
 donabantur, ratione cujus imperatores aunenpati. fagi. A. D» 
 71. n.iii. in Crit. fid Bar. 
 
 be, 
 
Chap. III. GospflHistory. 15*3 
 
 be, it is certain, they are often called Em- 
 perours. Joftphtts in his defcription of Vef+ 
 pafiaris and Titus's triumph at Rome after 
 the jewifo war, fays, That the (a) Empe- 
 rours lodged the night before near the tem- 
 ple of IJts. TUnte the elder in his de- 
 dication of his Natural Hiftory to Titus, 
 written before the death of Vefpafian, calls 
 Titus Emperour (b) more than once. Phi- 
 lojlratus fays, that Titus was declared Em- 
 perour at Rome, and admitted to equal pow- 
 er in the government (c) with his father. 
 It is in vain therefore to fay, that Titus was 
 called Emperour in his father's life-time pure- 
 ly on account of his having been faiuted 
 Emperour by his Soldiers in the Camp, or 
 in the Senfe in which this word was ufed 
 under the Commonwealth, fince Vhiloftratus 
 fays he was declared Emperour at Rome. 
 
 (fl) 'Exs? ybcg uvi77ccvovTO rfc vvktg$ ivMn/? ct oiVTOK^ecro^q. 
 Jofeph. de Bell, lib. vii. cap. v. p. 1305-. v. &. 
 
 (b) Jucundiflime Imperator- Scianique omnes quam ex 
 
 aequo tt cum vivat imp:rium. Triumphalis & Cenforius tu, 
 iexiefque conful, ac Tribuniciae poteftatis particeps. Vim. ia 
 Praefaf. 
 
 (c) 'AvctjifafcU j 'AvrcKgurwp cv rjj'Pa»//»Jf, ^ ccfiruuv khuQiiq 
 Tisrcovy knviu [am iroiko^Yiirm t»j$ u$X/& t<*> varpi- x. r. ?.. 
 Cumque imperator Romae eflet appellatus, omnibus ornatus 
 dignitatibus, Romam iter ingreflus, ut patris collega fieret. 
 Fhiloft. vit. Appollonii lib. vi. cap. 30. p. £60, Ppjiae- 1709. 
 
 More- 
 
XT 4 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 Moreover Capitolinus (a) calls Vefpafian 
 and Titus Princes without any diftin£Hon« 
 All thefe paflages thus laid together may fatif- 
 fie us, that Trince and Emperour are equi- 
 valent in thefe writers ; and that Tiberius 
 had a right to the title of Ptince, even dur- 
 ing the life-time of Auguftus, after he w r as 
 made his Collegue in the Empire. I fhall 
 refer the reader to but one paflage more, 
 in which Tlinie the younger aflfures us, that 
 Trajan was declared Emperour (b) by 
 Nerva in his life-time. And it feems very 
 ftrongly to fupport Do&or Vagi's opinion, 
 that the title of Emperour given to thefe 
 Collegues was founded rather on their Pro- 
 confular empire than theirTribunician power. 
 (4.) There are two or three verfes of 
 ^Dionyfius the geographer, which Do&or 
 Tagi efteems a vety remarkable teftimony 
 to the Proconfular Empire of Tiberius (c). 
 
 It 
 
 (a) Avus Annius Rufus, item Conful 8c praefeftus urbi 
 adfeitus in pitricios a principibus Vefpafiano 8c Tito cenfo- 
 ribus. inM:trc, Antonin Pbilof. 
 
 (6) Simul fi!ius, fimul Oiefar, mox IMPERATOR, 8c 
 <?bnibrs Tribuniciae potefta' is, &: omnia pariter 6c ftatim fa&us 
 cs, quae proxime parens verus tantum in alterura filium conr 
 tulit. Plin. Paneg, cap. 8. 
 
 (c) 'Ex. #ioq 'Av(ronvjt$ ecu f^iyoi xoigsiveovTSt;- v. 78* 
 
 A Jove Aufonii iemper longc lateque dominantes. 
 
Chap. III. Gospfl History, a ^ y 
 
 It appears from the two lad: of thcfe verfes, 
 that in ^ionyftus's time Rome was governed 
 by more than one Prince. It has been que- 
 ftioned indeed, when c DionyJius lived, and 
 who are the ^Princes he f peaks of. Some 
 have thought, they were the two Antoninies : 
 others have thought, he intended Severns % 
 Caracalla and Geta. {a) Cardinal Noris 7 
 I think, hath put it beyond all doubt by a 
 pallage alleged from (b) Tlinie, that 'Diony- 
 (ius lived in the time of Auguftus. The 
 Cardinal indeed fuppofes, that the Princes 
 here referred to are Cuius and Lucius Caefar, 
 Auguftus* adopted Sons. Do&or Vagi 
 feems to me to have fhewn, that the tirle 
 of ccvclktzc cannot belong to them 5 and 
 that Auguftus and Tiberius are the Princes 
 which T>ionyfius means : But for the parti- 
 culars I mud refer the reader to the Doctor 
 himfelf (c). 
 
 Fcoujw TifAvozocv, sfAeov fJAyav ciKov tciu.y.rui^ 25^ 
 
 MvTtfci ttccg-ucov 7roXtav, 'aQvuov totSAov, 5<6 
 
 De amce Tiberi loquitur ; aitque, Qui armbilem fecat in duag 
 partes Romam, Romam honorabilem, meorum magnam do- 
 mum Principum vel Dominorum. Dionyf orbis defcript. 
 
 (a) Cenotaph. Pif. DiflT. ii. p. 193. ' (b) Hoc in loco 
 
 [Arabia nempe] genitum efle Dionyfium,terrarum orbis fitus 
 recentifiTimum au&orem, quem ad commentanda omnia in 
 orientem pracmifit Divus Auguftus, ituro in Armeniam ad Par- ' ' 
 thicas Arabicaique res Majorcfilio. Vim. Hift.Nttt.Yib. vi.cap. i/ 4 
 
 (c) Cririca in Baron. A. D. 11, a. vi. vii. 
 
 There 
 
% $6 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 ("5.) There were two different com- 
 putations of Ttberius's reign in the time of 
 St. Clement of Alexandria. For having 
 firft faid, that Augujlus reigned forty three 
 years and Tiberius twenty two (a), he adds: 
 
 * But fome reckon the reigns of the Roman 
 1 Emperours thus.— Augujlus reigned forty 
 1 fix years four months and one day. Then 
 
 * Tiberius, twenty fix years, fix months, 
 
 * nineteen days (b). 
 
 Having laid before the reader the chief 
 arguments that have been produced for the 
 Proconfular or joint Empire of Tiberius 
 with Auguflus, I will confider alio fome of 
 the objections there are againft this opinion. 
 
 1. It is objected, That Spartian fays, that 
 Marcus Aurelius and Lucius Verus (c) 
 were the two firft Augujli that governed 
 the Roman Empire together. But to this it 
 is anfwered, that none of the Patrons of 
 this opinion ever faid, that Tiberius had the 
 title of Augujlus, whilft Augujlus lived, 
 but only that he was Collegue with him 
 
 (a) ' ' Avy%<?6$ y %TV) Tiaraeo&xovToi Tfi.sc- Ttfisgio^itn xfi.Clement. 
 Strom, lib. 1. p. 339. A. Parifis 1619. 
 
 (£) Tm$ ft rci tss #p<J>^S T 2 'VayjVAKW fiouriXzav xtws uve&~ 
 ypudusct ■' ' Atjya^c<i zBcio-iXivtrtv stjj ^r, [wvoa; o" 9 ijf/jtguv [Aioc*. 
 'Exht* Tifiipioz, stjjxs", fMvea r, vfAsgus id* id. ibid. C. 
 
 (c) Hi funtj qui poftea duopariter Augufti, primi rempub- 
 licam gubernavcrunt. Sfnriikn. in Hadrian, cap. zq. 
 
 3 in 
 

 Chap. III. Gospel History. z$"j 
 
 in the Empire. Thefe words of Spartian 
 are no more an obje&ion againft Tiberius's 
 Proconfular Empire, than they are againft 
 Titus s and Trajan's, who certainly enjoyed 
 this honour, the one with his father Vef- 
 pajian 9 and the other with Nerva, 
 
 Nor indeed did the title of Auguflus 
 give any new power. It was only a title of 
 honour (a), which fort of Titles were ufual- 
 ly taken gradually. Tiberius ever refufed 
 that of Father of his country. And would 
 not permit that of Auguflus to be given him 
 by any Decree, though he accepted of it 
 from fomeperfons, and made ufeof ithim- 
 felf in his letters to (J?) foreign Princes. And 
 53/0 takes notice of it as a Angularity in Ca- 
 ligula, that in one day he accepted all thofc 
 titles which Auguflus had received through- 
 out his long reign, and had fufFered to be 
 given him only one by one(fome of which 
 Tiberius never would accept of) except only 
 that of father of his country $ which he 
 
 (a) Vid. Bio. lib. ^5. p. W. 
 
 (b) To Ti Tit KXTPCC, T 3 XCCTgid i C$ 7TP0(TPryjOC XOVT&Zi C'i<U>~CtT6> 
 
 to tS 'Avygfg »» z7rlfcro p (v& >f> -\>Yt<piQr$w&<. tots Uxti) 
 teyoyjtvov c\' ukxuv, v^ ygxtpifjuwov uvxy.vaxry.av, t<p*ps' >£ 6rx>u$ 
 yi fixviXiva-k tktIv MMSf^s, v^ initio n^ooriviypxtyi. JOlo lib. f m 
 p.607. A. 
 
 S tcok 
 
z?8 The Credibility of the Book II 
 
 took upon him alfo in a fhort time af- 
 ter (a). 
 
 2dly, It is obje&cd: If TiBerius hzd been 
 made Collcgue in the empire with Augufius, 
 there could have been no rea(on for thofc 
 fears about the Succeffion of Tiberius, which 
 Livia fliewed upon the death (b) of Au- 
 guftus. Nor would Tiberius have hefitated 
 to accept the empire when offered to him 
 by the Senate : Or indeed, what occafion 
 could there have been for any new inveftiture 
 at ail > 
 
 But to this, I think it is eafy to anfwer, 
 that it is no furprifing thing, that Livia fhouid 
 be under fome pain, when the (ettiement of 
 her fan in the Empire was at Hake. Though 
 Tiberius had been partner in the empire, yet 
 certainly the death of Auguftus made a great 
 change. Germanicus was very popular, and 
 at the head of a numerous army (c). And 
 as for Tibenuss hesitation, he had been 
 hitherto but partner in the empire, and fome 
 kind of new inveftiture was neediul. It is 
 
 («) c/ f]«-s xccvra OTA o 'Avyxros ov rea-aru 7 s <*££& %gov® fJjoAig 
 7{{/0(rtlKiCTo] C* VAcL £jt/i£££ Att/Ssft. *>.t. X.Dio. hb. 5"9- p 6^:. J), 
 
 (b) Aciibus namoue cuftodiis domura, 6c vias fepferat 
 Livia. Tacit, Ann. lib. r. cap. 5. 
 
 (r) Tacit. Aaa. lib. i. cap. 33.— SS- Dio ' 1 b - 51 • P 2 3- 6o 3* 
 
 true, 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History. 25*9 
 
 true, he carried his diffimulation very far : 
 but Augujlus himiclf never renewed a frefli 
 term of government (which he did feveral 
 times) but with much difficulty $ and not 
 till he had been overcome by importunity 
 and the confederation of the neccflity of af- 
 fairs. 
 
 However, this diffimulation of 77. 
 berius has afforded a new proof, that he had 
 been Collegue with Auguftus. For, as Ta- 
 citus and c Dio intimate very plainly the fears 
 which Tiberius had of Germanicus 5 fo 
 Suetonius in particular fays, * He pretend- 
 4 ed a bad ftate of health, that Germanicus 
 ' might entertain hopes of a fpeedy Succeffi- 
 * on, or at left(^) a parrncrfhip in the empire". 
 But fuch an expectation had been ridicu- 
 lous in Germanicus, and this pretenle of 
 Tiberius could never have had the effect he 
 deflgned, if no one had been partner in the 
 empire before. 
 
 3. But the chief objection againft the 
 fuppofition, that St. Luke has computed the 
 reign of Tiberius from the time of his Pro- 
 confular empire feems to be this , That it 
 docs not appear that any writers have com- 
 
 (a) S mulavit &. valitudinem, quo aequiore ani.no Germani- 
 cus c-lerem SucceiTionem vcl certe focietatem jrincipatus 
 opairetur. Stift. in Tiber. Cap. i $, 
 
 S 2 puted 
 
ado The Credibility of the Bool II, 
 
 puted the reign of thofe who were Collegues 
 in the empire by the epocha of their Pro- 
 confular empire, and that in particular there 
 are no traces of this computation of Tiberius 3 s 
 reign (a). 
 
 To this I anfwer : There isreafon to think, 
 that people did often compute according to 
 the epocha of the Proconfular empire. *Pagi 
 mentions a Medal which has this infeription: 
 In the xi. new f acred year of the Emperour 
 Titus Cefar Vefpafian (b) Auguftus. Now 
 Titus reigned alone after his father's death 
 but a little above two years. 
 
 I x will not be expe&ed, I fhould here at- 
 tempt to explain the meaning of the epocha 
 of the new Jacred Tear. All that I mall ob- 
 ferve, is, that it appears not to have been 
 ufedupon the coins of any Emperours befide 
 thofe of Vefpafian, Titus, c Domitian and 
 
 (a) Eft autem inauditum in omni memoria, Titi annos ab 
 alio initio fuiiTe dedu&os quam a morte Vefpaiiani. S. Bafnage 
 Anna). Pol. ,Ecclef A.D. u. n. iv. 
 
 (£) Sic in nummo Graeco apud Occonem pag. 166. legitur 
 AYT. TITOT. KAI2APOS. OYESFIASIANOY . 2EB. ETOYS. 
 lEPOY. IA. id eft, Impe.atoris Titi Caefar is Vefpafian i Augufti 
 £ nno novo Sacro xi. Quo ex Titi nummo manifefte apparet, 
 deceptos viros eruditos qui negant annos Tiberii, Titi, aliorum_ 
 que Imperii Collegarum numeratos fuifle. Haec porro epocha 
 non nifi in Vefpafiani, Titi, Domidani & Nervaenummis oc- 
 currit. Vagi. Crit. in Baron. A.D. 81. n.iii. 
 
 $ Nerva : 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History. 261 
 
 Nerva : And that it docs not begin at any 
 one common period, fuch as the building or 
 dedication of any one particular Temple, 
 but that the numbers anfwer exa&ly to the 
 years of the feveral emperours on whofe 
 coins it is found {a). And Do&or Vagi is of 
 opinion, that it was an epocha chiefly ufed 
 by the people of Syria and Egypt, becaufe 
 the epithet facred is more common upon 
 their coins than any others (tf). 
 
 A n d I cannot but think, that there were 
 for fome time different computations of the 
 th of Nerva s and Trajan's reigns ; and 
 hat they were owing to this, that Trajan 
 was for fome time Nerva s Collegue in the 
 empire. 'Dodwcll (c) was of opinion, 
 that Nerva did actually refign the empire to 
 Trajan before his death. And fo (d) Au« 
 
 (a) Nifi cnim hoc modo in nurrmis Titi, Domitiani 8c 
 Nervae epocha haec explicetur, impoflible eft nummos inter 
 fe poffe convenire; cum coram imperii anr,os non excedat, 
 •fed ad amuffim iis refpondeat. Vagi. ibid. 
 
 (6) Et nullibi facri nomen frequentius, quam in nummisia 
 Syria 6c ^Egypto percufiis, ufurpatum. Vagi, ibid. n.iv. 
 
 (c) Vid. Append, ad Diflert. Cypr. n.30,40. 
 
 (d) Quid enim Nerva Cretenii prudentius ? — Qui cum ex- 
 trema aetate apud Scquanos, quoTyranni defecit metu, impe- 
 rium arbitrio legionum cepiflct; ubi profpexit, nili a iuperiori- 
 bus robuftioribufq; corpore,animoque geri non pofle,menie Sexto 
 acDecimofemeteo abdicavit. AnreL Ftci.de Caefar. in Nerva. 
 
 S 3 relms 
 
z£z The Credibility of the Book XL 
 
 re tins Victor-, and (<z) LaU annus feem to 
 lay. I think indeed thai* Nerva did not 
 rcfign, not only becaufe Eutropius (£) fays 
 that "Diocletian was the firft of all the Ro- 
 man Emperours that did fo, but efpecially 
 becaufe the younger T/inie^ who ferved un- 
 der A^mzand Trajan^ and knew them both 
 very well, fays nothing of it, though he 
 often (c) mentions their joint empire. 
 But 1 think, that the notion which the fore - 
 mentioned Authors had of Nerva's refigning 
 may be very well accounted for upon the Sup- 
 pofuion, that they had met with different 
 computations of the time of thefetwo Princes 
 reigns, in tome ancient writers : And their 
 miftakc is not eafie to be accounted for 
 othcrwife. 
 
 (a) Simul 8c exempium Nervae proferebatj qui imperium 
 Traj.-dao tradidifler. De Mor:. Perfecur. cap. i 8. 
 . (b) DiocieuiaDus privjtus in villa, quae haud procul a Salonis 
 efr, praeclaro ctio fenuitj inuiitata virtute uius j ut foius 
 omnium pod conditum Rcjmanuro imperium ex tanto rafiigio 
 i'ponte ad privatae vitae (latum civiiirateinque remcaret. Eutrop. 
 ?ib. ix.cap. 2,8. 
 
 (c) Affumptus e.s in laborum curarumque consortium. 
 Tlin. Jtaug- cap. 7. Indc Quasi depoilto imperio qua fecuri- 
 tate, qua gloria Iaetus ? (Servo, nempg). Namquaatuium re_ 
 fert deponas an rABTjARis imperium, nifi quod difficilius 
 koc eft* ibid. cip. 8, Magnum hoc tuae moderationis indi- 
 cium, qupd ncn fojum fiiccciijr imperii; fed particeps etiam 
 sociusque pla^uiili. cap. £» 
 
 As 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History. 163 
 
 A s for TtberiuSy I take it for granted 
 that it has been fully proved, that he was for 
 fome time partner in the empire with Au- 
 gufiits \ and particularly that it has been 
 made appear that Tifo was Prefed of Rome 
 twenty years, and that he was put into that 
 Poll: by the appointment or procurement of 
 Tiberius. (Thus much I think Monfieur 
 Bafnage allows) (a). And Suetonius and 
 Tlinie both fay that Tiberius was then 
 'Prince. 
 
 And it is highly probable,that the Srft Chri- 
 ftians had a perfwafion that there were two dif- 
 ferent epochaes of the beginning of Tibe- 
 rius\ reign : Othcrwife , when they faid, 
 that Jefus was crucified in the fifteenth year 
 of Tibjnus, when the two Gemini were Con- 
 fuls, namely A. D. 29. fas they didalmoft 
 univerfally) after he had preached above (£) 
 two years, or a [c) whole year including two 
 
 (a) UbI fupra. A. D. II. n. ii. £) Tricefimo 
 
 cnim juxta Evangelifram Lucim anno aetatis fuae coepit in 
 came Dominus Evangeiium praedicare, &. juxta Johannem 
 Evangeliftam, per tria pafchata duo:; pcftea implevit annos: 
 2c inde fex Tiberii iupputantur anni &c. Jpillindtim La.>di* 
 emus apud Huron. Comment, in Dan. c. 9. O 3 '1*$*$ xu,^ 
 rm *I>j<r2 %0t rgtcc. Ji£r^t4 / ;)' *r;j* Qrig. cont. Cell*. 1. a. p. 67. 
 
 (c) Kst» crt ivtctvrov f/sovov'i^u uvrov xr.f tlui,y^r^ro yiyieftr* 
 
 rut arcoc, n&iTiKctihxttTu xv trtt Tifiepx, k. x&rtx.ati&K.siT& 
 
 'Avyus-%' 'uru xXryxirut ru toixkcvtu ztk $*>$ » t~u6:-v. C'em. 
 
 Akx. Stom. 1. x. p. 540. A. 
 
 S 4 pafiovcrs, 
 
%6^ The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 paffovers, or a year and fome (^)few months * 
 they muft have been fenfible that they contra- 
 dicted St. Luke, who fays, that the word 
 of God came to John the Baptlfi in the fif- 
 teenth year of Tiberius 5 fince alfo they muft 
 necefTarily have allowed fome time for the 
 miniftry of John, diftinct from that of Je- 
 fus. 
 
 That we have fo few examples of this 
 way of computing the reign of Tiberius is 
 not to be wondered, confidering how few 
 ancient writers who lived near his time are 
 comedown to us, and efpecially fuch as lived 
 in the Provinces, where this epocha muft 
 have been chiefly ufed. The diftind com- 
 putation of ^/"fuguftus's reign to the time of 
 , his death, and of Tiberius's after him was 
 undoubtedly mod commodious : and forthis 
 reafon, probably, the computation of Ti- 
 berius's reign from the time of his Procon- 
 iular Empire was foon dropped. Befides, 
 Tiberius feems to have taken pains to obli- 
 terate this date of his government : inafmuch 
 as he was unwilling to have it thought that 
 he owed his greatneflc to the adoption of 
 Augujius, or the intrigues of his mother 
 
 (a) 'Eytavrev. yc&g x% y^ f/Jii»st$ cAiy#§ iwuhr Or'ig. Pbiloc. 
 p.*. 
 
 Livia 5 
 
Chap.IIL Gospel History. r6s 
 
 Livia 5 but would have it afcribed folely to 
 the free choice of the people after Augufius's 
 death (a), that is, to his own merit, as 
 2)/0 exprefly fays (£). 
 
 TIBERIUS then having had for fomc 
 time before the death of Augaflus equal 
 power with him in all the provinces and ar- 
 mies, and having been made thereby partner 
 with him in the empire, it is not impofllble, 
 but that St. Luke might compute the reign 
 of Tiberius by this epocha, 
 
 We fhould now, if poflible, fettle the 
 exa6l time when Tiberius was made part- 
 ner with Auguftus. It may be concluded, 
 that he was fo A. U. 765, two years be- 
 fore Auguftus died, becaufe in that year 
 Tifo was made prefed of Rome, Tiberius 
 btingTrince. And Arch-bifhop UJherzni 
 Dr, Trideaux place the beginning of this 
 government of Tiberius in this year. 
 
 There is however a confiderable dif- 
 ficulty attending this matter, becaufe Velleius 
 
 (a) Dabat 8c famae, ut vocatus ele&ufque potius a Repub- 
 lica videretur, quam per uxorium ambitum 6c fenilem adop- 
 tionem inrepfiffe. Tacit. Ann. lib. i.cap.8. 
 
 (b) ''H^/j p. <f> vkxo-cc on imiSott y Aw':a cutam$ & 'Awyxrx 
 t/y ug%w avrco 7rs(ii7rs7ron)Ktvx,i iAsyero, t7r?.scrr£v ottoj^ i/j^ kclp 
 fateiritf &.?&& 7txgx ty^c, fivXric, kvocyKafoe, ew, (c" x-ccroc ccpirw crCpZv 
 vrpvwuv fofyitv etvrw uMtyiveii' Die lib. 57. p. 635 D. 
 
 and 
 
r66 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 and Suetonius differ about the time in which 
 the Law was palled by the Senate decreeing 
 Tiberius equal power with Auguftus in the 
 provinces and armies. According to Sueto- 
 nius this law was not palled till after Twe- 
 rinses triumph, which certainly happened 
 A. U. 765. A. D. 12. But according to 
 Velleius (a) this law was pafled at the defire 
 of ^Atigaftus before Tiberius returned to 
 Rome from Germany to make his triumph. 
 Do&or Tagi (b) is inclined to prefer the 
 teftimony of Velleius Pater cuius before that 
 of Suetonius, becaufe Velleius was contem- 
 porary with Tiberius. But yet he dares not 
 be pofuive in this matter, becaufe St. Cle- 
 ment's numbers are different from both. 
 However, as Tiberius wasConful in the 21ft, 
 and 31ft years of our Lord, he judges this 
 piece of refpeft to the tenth and twentieth 
 years from the nth year of our Lord to (V) 
 
 t {a) Siteton. in Tibfr. cap. a 1 , 22. Velleius Pat. L. ii. cap, 121, 
 
 Their words are tranfenbed above., p. Jfi, 
 \b) Vid.Crit. A. Ch. 11 n.x. 
 (c) Q_Liia tarn en Tiberius anno Chrifli xxi. rurfufque anno 
 Chrifii xxxi. Confql proceffit, exiftirnandum, utrumque con- 
 fuktum ob Decennalia 2c Vicennalia Imperii Proconiularis 
 Tibcrii gcrtum, ideoque 5c iilum anno Chrifli xi. Imperio 
 Proconlulari donatum: quamquam uterque confularus anno 
 Chrifli xii. quo rem adtarn narrat Suetonius, refpondere ctiam 
 poffit, etiamfi quinquennaiia legitirao tempore celebrata fuerint. 
 
 i4. ibki. be 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History. 167 
 
 be a confirmation of the Suppofition that 
 Tiber hiss proconfular power commenced 
 A. D. 11. Heobferves alfo marks of ho- 
 nour ihewn to the Qiiinquennals of this 
 epocha, fuch as the dedication of temples 
 by himfeif or the people of the provinces, 
 the founding of cities by dependent princes, 
 and fuch other the like things, with which 
 the Qtiinquennals and T>ecennals 7 that is> 
 the fifth and tenth years of remarkable 
 events were wont to be celebrated. 
 
 A s he thinks it mod probable, that 77- 
 berius's Proconfular Empire began A. U. 
 764, A. D. 11 5 fo he is pretty well fatisfied 
 as to the month and day of the month > 
 which he thinks was the 2 8th of Juguji^ or 
 vth. of the Kalends of September. One 
 rcafon for it is, that from the 725th year of 
 the City, Auguftus feems to have had a par. 
 ticular refped for the vth. of the Kalends of 
 months. Moreover, according to the fecond 
 computation which Clemens Alexandrimis 
 mentions of the reign of Tiberius , it muft 
 have begun on the 28th. of Augufl. Saint 
 Clement fays, that Tiberius reigned twenty 
 fix years, fix months, nineteen days. Now 
 Tiberius died the 16th. of March A.D. 37. 
 from the 28th. of Auguft A.D. 10 to the 
 
 I dtll. 
 
t6 8 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 1 6th. of March A. D. 37. are exadly ( ac- 
 cording to Dodor Tagfs reckoning) fo many 
 years, months, and days as St. Clement men- 
 tions. So that though St. Clement has been 
 in the wrong as to the year, flnce he begins 
 this computation of Tzberzus's reign A. D. 
 10 5 yet he has helped us to the month and 
 day of the month on which it commen- 
 ced (a). 
 
 I h a v e reprefented the Doctor's fenfe 
 of this matter, as well as I can, in a few 
 words. But I cannot fay, that this reafoning 
 is altogether convincing. I muft acknow- 
 ledge, that I fee not how any argument can 
 be drawn from St. Clement's teftimony, 
 cither for the year or month of this epocha, 
 if his numbers have been altered, as the 
 Dodor allowes they have been in many 
 places, and particularly in this very pafTage. 
 
 There appears to me fome weight in 
 the Dodor's obfervation upon the Quinquen- 
 nals and Dccennals of this epocha : But 
 yet it is not fully condufive. There might 
 be fome other reafon, befide that here fup- 
 pofed, for Tiberius's taking the confulfhip 
 
 (a) Qiiare Clemens Alexandrinus rei geftae diem nobis con- 
 fervavic, fed numeri annurum corrupt!, quod in eo au&ore 
 n^ii infrequens. Tagi. Critic. A.D. n. n. ix. 
 
 AoD.2I» 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History. 269 
 A. D. 21. and $.n The izd. and 26th. 
 years of the Chriftian Era are as remarkable 
 as any other for the founding of Cities, 
 dedicating temples, and erefting of monu- 
 ments. Though indeed, if this epocha be- 
 gan in the midle of any year, it is obvious 
 at firft fight, that thefe honours may be divided 
 betwixt two years. 
 
 And perhaps Velleius V at er cuius and Sue- 
 tonius may be reconciled by fuppofing only, 
 that there was fome time between Awuftus's 
 propofing Tiberius 's partnerfhip with him to 
 the Senate, and the palling of the Ad. 
 
 Upon the whole, I think there is good 
 reafon to believe, that Tiberius was Collegue 
 in the Empire with Auguffus, and that this 
 epocha of Tiberius'* empire was followed 
 for fome time by fome perfons, in the pro- 
 vinces at left • but it appears to me uncertain, 
 when this Proconfular empire began, whether 
 about two years, or about three years before 
 Auguftus died. 
 
 Let us however adjufl: the numbers in 
 St. Luke ro this computation of the reign 
 of Tiberius, which commenced either about 
 two years, or about three years before his 
 fole empire after the death of Augufius. 
 
 And 
 
2,70 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 And we will have an eye to the two dates of 
 our Saviour's nativity abovementioned, fc 
 September or October A. U. 748, and 749* 
 If Tiberius'* Proconfular Empire began 
 about three years before Auguftus died, fc. 
 the 28th. of Aug. A. U. 764, A. D. ir. 
 then this 15 th. of Tiberius'* reign (accord- 
 ing to this computation of it) began Auguft 
 2g. A.U. 77s. A. D. 25. Suppofing that 
 John the Baptift began his miniftiy Novem- 
 ber following, in the fame year,- and that 
 Jefus was baptized by him the 6th. of Ja- 
 nuary following in, A.U. 779. A.D. 26 : 
 Then upon the fuppofition that Jefus w.as 
 born in September A. U. 748, he would be 
 at his baptifm thirty years of age and fome 
 months over. 
 
 If Tiberius'* Proconfuiar empire com- 
 menced about two years before the death of 
 Auguftus, fe.A.V. 765. A.D. 12, then the 
 fifteenth of the reic;n of Tiberius besan in 
 A. U. 779- A. D. 26. And fuppofing that 
 John the Baptift began his miniftry in AV 
 wmker of that year, and that Jefus was bap- 
 tized by him the 6th. of January follow- 
 ing, A. U. 780. A.D. 27, then, upon the 
 .-iiippoiuion that Jefus was born in September 
 A. U. 749, he would be at the time of his 
 
 baptifm 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History. 171 
 
 baptifm thirty years of age and fome months 
 over: Or, if born A. U. 748, he would be 
 fomewhat more than thirty one years of age. 
 
 W e will put this matter one way more. 
 If 'John the Baptift began his miniftry in 
 the fifteenth of Tiberius A. U. 778. A. D. 
 25, (as in the firft dating of this queftion^) 
 but did not baptize Jefus till the 6th. of Ja- 
 nuary A. U. 780. A. D. 27, after he had 
 preached fomewhat above a year, then Jefus 
 would be at his baptifm thirty years of age 
 and odd months, if he was born A. U. 749 . 
 thirty one years of age and fome odd months, 
 if boiii the later end of the year 74 8. 
 
 I s e e not but that we have a very good 
 right to take thofe dates of thcfc events 
 which appear moft favourable to St. Luke • 
 fince it is not abfolutely certain when Herod 
 died, or when Tiberius s Proconfular Em- 
 pire began : Nor have any of the writers of 
 harmonies determined, that I know of, be- 
 yond contradi&ion, the fpace of time be- 
 tween the commencement of John the Bap- 
 tijl's miniftry and our Saviour's baptifm. But 
 if we allow on each hand the dates the left 
 favourable to St. Luke's numbers, viz>. that 
 Jefus was born A. U. 748. and that he was 
 
 not 
 
%7% The Credihility of the Book II. 
 
 not baptized till January A. U. 780. A. D. 
 27 5 yet even then Jefus would be little more 
 (as has been fhewn) than thirty one years of 
 age j at which time a perfon may be faid 
 very properly to be about thirty years of 
 age, as will appear by and by. 
 
 I imagine I have now fhewed, that 
 there is nothing improbable in the fuppofi- 
 tion, that St. Luke computed the reign of 
 Tiberius, not from his fole empire after the 
 death of Auguftus but from the time of his 
 proconfular empire, when he had equal pow- 
 er with Auguftus given him in all the pro- 
 vinces and armies, and that upon this fuppo* 
 fition, there liesno obje&ion againft the age 
 afcribed to Jefus at his baptifm. 
 
 §. III. H o w e v e r, in order to compleat 
 this Solution of this difficulty, it will be pro- 
 per to confider fome other notes of time, 
 which we find in theEvangelifts, and to en- 
 quire, whether thcfe likewile agree with this- 
 fuppofition. 
 
 S t. Luke fays : Now in the fifteenth 
 year of the reign of Tiberius Cefar, Pon- 
 tius Pilate being Governour of Judea 
 — the word of God came unto John the 
 
 Luke iii. Son of Zacharias. 
 
 It 
 
Chip. III. Gospfl HrsTORY. 173 
 
 I t has been the opinion of fome learned 
 men, that Pilate did not come into Judea fo 
 loon as the 15th year. of Tiberhish Pfocon- 
 fular empire, the 12th of his fole empire, 
 A. U. 77S. A. D. 25. 
 
 That everyone may judge of this mat- 
 ter, I fhall let down the account Jofephu s 
 has given of Pilate's leaving judea, from 
 which we fhall be able to conclude, when 
 he came into it. 
 
 The Senate of the Samaritans fent 
 complaints againft Pi' ate to Vitellius, Prc- 
 fidenr of Syria. And Jofephus fays : c Vi- 
 c tellius, fending his friend MarceUus to ad- 
 1 minifte'r the affairs of judea, commanded 
 c Til ate to go to Ro;r>e to anfwer to the 
 c Emperour for thofe things of which he 
 c was accufed by the jews. And 'Pi/ate 
 c having fpent ten years in Judea, haft- 
 c ned away to Rome, in obedience to the 
 1 commands of Vitellius, not daring to re- 
 c fufe. But before he got to Rome, Tiberius 
 ' was dead. 
 
 < Moreover Vitellhts came into Judea , 
 < and went up to J erufalem. It was then a 
 c Feafi: time. The Feaft is called the Fass- 
 c over. Vitellius being received there with 
 * great magnificence, abolifhed entirely the 
 
 T tax 
 
^74* The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 1 tax upon vendible fruits, and granted to 
 c the Priefts the right of keeping in the 
 c temple the Vcftmcnt of the High Prieft 
 4 and all its ornaments as they had done for- 
 
 * merly. Having conferred thefc favours 
 
 * upon the nation, he alfo took away the 
 « Priefthood from the High-Pricft Joftph* 
 i who is like wile called Caiaphas, and fut> 
 
 * ftituted in his room Jonathan the Son of 
 1 A nanus the High-Piieft. And then re- 
 ' turned to Antioch {a). 
 
 J O S ET HU S immediately after this 
 fays, that Tiberius fent orders to Vitellius to 
 to go and make aleague with the King of 
 the Partisans ; that Vitellius having had a 
 \w ee t i n g w i t h t he Ki ng at t h c r i ver Euphrates , 
 and executed his commiilion, returned again 
 to (p) Antioch, 
 
 fa) K«-t 'QiiV'«nfl§, MwfMSKev roy uvrx $&.?» ixxipy'&i 
 iftiUiihuTW TtXq' Wdcauq y-Vi}Coz/tSvt.v^ [U'Azrcy tmAivrsv sVi V&yjTfi 
 frzwsii, wp-:< a Kcirr;yn(luv 'Ikeuiu hH:\:vru, rev a-vrcxrarcfet' v^ 
 RfAareg, c^a ii-ia-j hevrfQjLq t-;l '[xfraUi,. lie, 'P&f/yw wiiys'io, 
 retTc, 'Oui'T*3£u* r:u£opivo, hrc^cuq, zk ivuvrsiTrsTv TF'ivj n tjj Payj.j 
 TS(cyC.-i kvih, $£x:ju Tippies )AttT&T<x.e, 'Qv't'rti&ioi j, s*f-rm 
 *[}£eai' i en6t.(pw-ctf*®6$s *** 'li[orc/M(*&r u.-:vn, v^ v,v stvroit, icon, 
 Uu<y& j xctAthv..' ^xfoic, 3 yjzy&bozftxiis 'GwVeAmc, tsj teA^ 
 *fr anxL/j£vuv jc«p"&>y tZvir t cw Hi tc prcti Tti$ Tc/,vrr,v KKTSlx&tFt Xj 
 
 cv too (sfS xlitxuvw vse roik isftvoriv \z r - v T W eVj/*iA«fl«, x-vJoTt 
 k, Ttpvitc/ w uvro'ir. t,£x<riu' x. 7, a. J of ph. Ant. lib. {8. cap» 
 
 After 
 
Chap. III. Gospfl History. 175- 
 
 After this VtteUius received orders 
 from Tiberius to go and make war with 
 Areias Kino; of Pefra. 
 
 ' Vite'lius then having got all things 
 ready for the war with Are!as> haftencd 
 away for Petra with two legions, and 
 other auxiliary forces, and was corneas far 
 as Pto/omas. But as he was about to 
 march his army through Judea, the chief 
 men met him, entreating him not to go 
 through their country ; — He complied 
 with their requeft. And having ordered 
 his army to take their rout through the great 
 plain, he himfelf with ftefWtheTetrarch 
 and their friends went up to Jer&falem, to 
 worfhip God, a Feaft of the Jews being 
 at hand (a). He was received by the people 
 of the Jews with great rciped. Having 
 been there three days, he took away the 
 High-Pricfthood from 'Jonathan and gave ic 
 to his brother Theophilus. And on the 
 fourth day after his arrival, receiving let- 
 ters which brought an account of the death 
 of Tiberius, he took an oath of the peo- 
 ple to Cains (b)\ 
 
 b) Id. ibid. cap. vi. §. 3. 
 
 T 2 A F£W 
 
a7^ The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 A few remarks on this account will 
 fuffice. 
 
 I t is not exprefly faid, which Feaft of 
 the Jews the laft mentioned Feaft was : But 
 there can be no doubt, but that it was the 
 Paflbver A. D. 37. I think this is not con- 
 tefted by any one. Tiberius died the 1 6th of 
 March, A, D. 37. The news of his death 
 might eafily reach Judea by the Paflbver of 
 that year, and could not be retarded to the 
 Feaft of Tentecoft. 
 
 T h e Paflbver fir ft mentioned in this 
 account muft have been the Paflbver A. D. 
 36. It is evident, that the fummer follow- 
 ing Vttcllius went as far as the river 
 Euphrates, and returned to \yintioch : and 
 the next (bring he was to go and make war 
 with Aretas. Cut whilfl his troops marched 
 towards Tetra, he went up to Jerufalem at 
 the Paflbver in the year thirty kven^ as has 
 been obferved. Nothing can be plainer, I 
 think, than that Pihte was removed before 
 the Paflbver in thirty fix. And he muft 
 have been out feme time before. Vitellins 
 did not go to Jerufalem immediately after 
 hehadfent away Vilate t but firft ordered his 
 friend Marecllus to take care of affairs there. 
 
 It 
 
.Chap. HI. Gospel History. 177 
 
 I x is not (aid here, how long Pilate had 
 been out, before Vitellius went up to jeru- 
 falem ; but it is probable, it was half a year. 
 This may be concluded from hence. Jofe- 
 phus fays, that Vitellius, when he was at 
 Jerufahm, the firft time here fpoken of, 
 put the High-Prieit s veftment into the Prieft's 
 hands to be kept by them in the Temple 
 Jofephns is very expreffe,that this favour was 
 conferred by Vitellius upon the nation at this 
 time, and that having done fo, he put out 
 Caiaphas and returned to Antioch. Now 
 in another place Jofephns fays : ' This Vcft- 
 
 * ment King Herod kept here [in the Caftle 
 c of t^Antonia], And after his death it was 
 c kept in the fame place by the Romans till 
 
 < the times of Tiberius Cefar. In his reign 
 ' Vitellius prcfident of Syria, having come 
 c to Jerufalem, and the people receiving 
 
 * him in a very honourable manner, he being 
 c willing to make them a fuitable return 
 
 1 fince they had defired that the facred veft- 
 c ment might be in their own cufiody, wrote 
 
 < to Tiberius Cefar about it, and he grant- 
 c ed their rcqueft (V).' From this paifuge it 
 
 appears, 
 
 (a) Tuvt'w o fisctrtXtui 'Hpa>«<js ttyvAxhv c« rZ towu i *J pirce 
 
 T 3 >;r. 
 
a7& The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 appear?, that Vitellius did not put the High- 
 PrieiYsVeftment into the hands of the Jews 
 without leave from Tiberius. If Vitellius 
 actually made this grant when he was at Je- 
 rufalem at the Pailbver A. D. thirty fix, (as 
 Jofepkus fays cxprcfly in the fir ft paflage) 
 it is likely the Jews had fent their rcqueft 
 to him about the time that 'Pi/ate was re- 
 moved. And considering the flowncfle of 
 Tiberius in all his proceedings, it will not be 
 thought ftrange, that we allow half a year 
 between the Jews prefenting their rcqueft to 
 Vitellius \n Syria, and the return of an an- 
 fwer from the Emperour : It is rather fur- 
 prizing itfhould have come back lb ioon. 
 
 It is poflible that fomc may except a- 
 gainft this argument, and fay, that the grant 
 was not made by Vttelltus, when he w:s at 
 Jerufalem \ but that he there received the 
 Jews rcqueft, then wrote to Tiberius, and 
 lometime after this put the (acred Veftment 
 into their cuftody. But though Jofephus 
 does in this laft paflage feem to place things 
 in this order 5 yet I Ihculd think that fince 
 
 vjwmW hti tutu i) 'C-j.'riXs.ic; I tv,(, ~Zvp.ci$ viyiy.a>v > Lrid/i&f.trcis 
 
 fc/w U3?o 7W ccvtZv tfyx<ri&>i *;£«Myp«Y* 5T£p tut av T i £ s& Kciu aft, 
 xczxiiyce fctTfity, Jut. lib, XV. csp.xi.j.j. 
 
 in 
 
Chap. III. GospelHistort. zy9 
 
 m the paflage firft cited, he fays, Viteliius be- 
 llowed this favour upon the Jews, whilft at 
 Jerufahm at that times it may be inferred, 
 that the petition had been prcfentcd to him 
 whilft in S/ria y znd that he brought Ttberius's 
 grant to ^erufalem with him. 
 
 H o w e v £ r, though this argument mould 
 not be allowed me, yet fincc upon c P;late*s 
 removal Marcellus was fent to govern in 
 Judea> it is plain there was fome time be- 
 tween Viteliius' s iffiiing his orders' to dilate 
 to go to Rome^ and his own Journey to 
 Jemfalem. This time might be the fpace 
 of five or fix months, and I apprehend that 
 the probability at left of my rcafoning a- 
 bove, that Viteliius received the Jews peti- 
 tion for keeping the High-PricfVs Veftmcnc 
 in Syria, then wrore to Tiberius, and deli- 
 vered it to them, when he was at Jen-fa- 
 I rn, may very much difpofe us to admit 
 the fuppofifion of this fpace. 
 
 And though it (rjould be thought, that 
 at the PaiTover next after Tilateh removal 
 Viteliius did not give the High- Pricft's 
 Veftmcnt into the iewijh hands, but only 
 received their pctirion for that favour -; yet 
 this does fully overthrow the opinion of 
 thofc, who have thought, that Pilate was 
 T 4 removed 
 
2 So The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 removed but a few weeks before the death 
 of Tiberius. Vitellius, after the removal 
 of Tilaie^ was at Jcrufalem at a Paflbver, 
 and having been magnificently received by 
 the Jews, in requital of their civilities wrote 
 to Tiberius (fo we will fuppofc at prefent) 
 that they might have the keeping of the 
 High-Pricft's garment, and Tiberius granted 
 it. This PaiTover then was not that Pail- 
 over, at which Vitellhts, being at Jerufa- 
 km, heard of the death of Tiberius. We 
 are therefore fully allured that the paflbver 
 which followed the removal of Vilate was 
 not the paflbver A. D. 37, before which 77- 
 berius died, but the paflbver preceding, viz. 
 that in A. D. 36. 
 
 1 t is certain thcn,that Pilate was removed 
 before the Paflbver, A. D. 36, and probable, 
 that he was removed about Ave or fix months 
 before it, namely, about September or Gfio- 
 bcr, A. D. 35. about a year and a half before 
 the death of Tiberius. 
 
 Since Joftphns fays, that Pilate fpent 
 ten years in judea\ he came thither about 
 OStoter A. D. 25, or at left before the 
 Paflbver A. D. 26, in the twelfth year of 
 Tiireriufsfolc empire, which twelfth year be- 
 gan the nineteenth of Augufi A. D.i^'- This 
 
 alio 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History. a8l 
 
 alio is perfectly confident with what Jofe- 
 phus fays of Valerius Grains, the firfl Pro- 
 curator of Judea under Tiberius, that he 
 c /pent eleven years in Judea, and was then 
 c fucceeded by Pontius Pilate (ay. 
 
 S o that though we fhould fuppofe that 
 Tiberius s Proconfular Empire began three 
 years before the death of %yligujius, as 
 Dr. Pagi is inclined to do, k. 28. Augitji. 
 A. U. 764. A. D. 1 1 ; yet Pontius Tilate 
 would even then be in Judea in the fifteenth 
 of that Empire, which began Aug. 28. A.U. 
 778. A. D. 25. 
 
 There is one difficulty, and but one 
 in all this matter. Jofephus fays, that ' SP/. 
 * /2ft? — - haftened away to Rome in obc- 
 c dience to the commands of Vitellms, not 
 
 < daring to rcfufc. But before he got to 
 c Rome, Tiberius was dead'. 
 
 I t will be beft to take the objection from 
 Mr. IVhiJfon. c Now it is known from Jo- 
 1 fiphus that Pontius Pilate was Procurator 
 c of Judea but ten years ; and that he was 
 f put out fo little a while before the death 
 
 < of Tiberius^ that the Emperour was a&ual- 
 ' ly dead before P//*/* arrived at Rome to 
 
 tfUTf^Ksr Antiq. 18. c. 2,§. 2. 
 
 anfwer 
 
i8i The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 e anfwer for himfelf. Tiberius died March 
 1 26th. (a) A. D. 37. And Pilate might 
 
 * be out of his office a month, or fix weeks 
 
 * before, iuppofe it February ', from thence 
 c we muft count ten years backward for 
 e for the beginning of Pilate's government, 
 1 which will therefore fall into February 
 ' A.D. 27. [b): 
 
 This is the difficulty : But 1 think, it 
 would be very wrong to be determined by 
 one fingle Sentence againft all the evidence 
 which arifes from the whole feries of a nar- 
 ration. It is extremely evident, that the 
 Fcaft time, in which, ViteUiiis y being at 
 Jerufalem> heard of the death of Tiberius, 
 is not the Pailbver which followed next af« 
 ter 'Pilate's removal. I fhaii not repeat 
 particulars, but content my (elf with refer- 
 ring the reader to Jofephus's account, al- 
 ready tranferibed. 
 
 And if this one fentence about the time 
 of Pilate's arrival at Rome be inconfiftent 
 with the reft of the ftory, it is more reafon- 
 
 (a) I fuppofe that Mr. Whifim herein follows Dio (anlefs 
 it be a fault of the pref<j : But according to Suetonius and 
 Tacitus, Tiberius died the 16th. of March, vid. Vagi. Crir* 
 in Baron. A,D. 3". n. ii. 
 
 {b) Whifton's Ihort view of the harmeny of the four Evan- 
 gi lifts, Fag, 1 59. 
 
 able 
 
Chap. IIL Gospf.l History. 283 
 
 able to fuppofc, that Jafephus was miftaken 
 h\ this particular, than in every thing elfe. 
 He mii>ht be mif-informcd about the time 
 when Vilate got to Rom?, but he could 
 not well be ignorant of fome of the moft 
 remarkable events in his own country, that 
 is, when Pilate left Judea t when Caiaphas y 
 and his SuccelTor Jonathan were put out of 
 the High-Pricft's Office. 
 
 But there is no reafon to fuppofe this 
 particular is inconfiftcnt with the other cir- 
 cumftances mentioned in this relation. 
 Mr. JVhijion indeed can allow but a month 
 Or fix weeks between the time of Vilate $ 
 removal out of his office and his arrival at 
 Rome. But it ought to be confidcred, that 
 Vilate was not fent to Rome in order 
 to take poflefllon of a kingdome or fome 
 new ample province, but to anfwer for his 
 conduct in his late government. Nor was 
 he fent exprefs : Nor was he recalled by the 
 Emperour himfclf. But he was fent away 
 by Vitellius, a fellow fubjecl, though a fu- 
 pcrtor officer. Jofephus fays, that dilate 
 haftened away to Rome. I have given his 
 words the ftrongeft fenfc in the translation . 
 but I think, the meaning is no more than 
 that he went away out of Jvdea. And 
 I Jofephus 
 
2.84 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 c joftphits intimates very plainly the relu&ance 
 with which Tilate obeyed Viteliiiis % when 
 he fays, that he went, not daring to re- 
 fufe. 
 
 There was, if I miftake not, fomc 
 Law under the Commonwealth, which re- 
 quired the Governonrs of provinces to be at 
 Rome in three months time after their term 
 of government was expired : But whether 
 that law was in force now, I cannot fay. 
 However it is plain it was not obferved : 
 c Fifo's condudt is a proof of it. Germanicus 
 died in November or [a) fooner : As may be 
 inferred from a paffagc of Suetonius ',\vho (ays, 
 1 that the publick ibrrow for his death at 
 c Rome continued even through the Holy 
 c Days of 'December (by : meaning, I fup- 
 pofe, the Saturnalia , which were cele* 
 bratcd in the middle of that month. And 
 as Germankus died in Syria, fome time 
 niuft be allowed for the carrying the news 
 
 (a) Baftage [Ann. Polit. Ec. Vol. i. p. 22.1.] fuppefes he 
 died mju'.y. Dec'mio quints Julii Germ:nicum vkam cum mort e 
 rommutaffe ex Taciro cor.jtduram iacirrus: T.qwfttr ordo in- 
 futiut , uts ttirmae id'ibus ju'iis imzginrm (jus fquerentur. 
 Ann. 1.2. c.83. (£) Scd ut demuui fato fun£um 
 
 palam factum el, non folatiis ullfc, non ediclis uilis inhiberi 
 luctus publicus potuit , duravitqae etiam per feftos Decembris 
 msniis diss. S-Asion, in Cal:^. cap. 6. 
 
 Of 
 
Chap. III. Gospil History. aSy 
 
 of his death from thence to Rome. Tifo 
 was gone from the Province of Syria before 
 the death of Germanicm. It is mod pro- 
 bable, that he was turned out by Gerwa- 
 iiiciis {c). And yet he was not come 
 to Rome at the time of the Megalenjian 
 games of the next year, which were kept on 
 the fifth of April (6). It is true, the peo- 
 ple of Rome were very uneafy at thele de- 
 lays of Pfo , becaufe they wanted to have 
 him brought to his trial for the death of 
 Germanicus, whom he was thought to have 
 poyfoned. But yet I do not perceive that 
 when {c) his trial came on, his long abfence 
 from Rome is reckoned up amongft his other 
 crimes. 
 
 A n d to add no more, the flownelle of 
 Tiberius in all his proceedings may help us to 
 account for Pilate's delays in going to Rome, 
 
 (a) Addunt p'erique jufium (Pifonem) provinciae decedere. 
 T.cit. Ann. lib. ii. cap. 70. 
 
 (b) Et quia Ludorum Megalenfium fpeclaculum fuberat, 
 etiam voluntatis refumerent. Turn exuto juftitio, rcditum ad 
 muniaj Sc Drufus lilyricos ad exercitus profedhis eft, ercclis 
 c mnium animis pjtendae a Pifone ultionis; 2c crebo queftu, 
 qu;J vagus interim per amoena Ajiac at que Ac.': aide, 
 adr ■ ganti & fubdola mora fcelerum probatioies fnteerttret. 
 Jacit. Ann. lib iii. cap. 6, 7. 
 
 U) Id. ibid, cap. 15, 
 
 though 
 
28 6 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 though it befuppofed that he made a year and 
 a half of it. 
 
 JOSE P HUS fays, that Tiber his was 
 the moft dilatory Prince that ever lived (a). 
 His conduct towards Herod Agrippa affords 
 a ftrong proof it. A Servant of Agrippa 
 waited upon the Prefect of Borne, alluring 
 him he had fome informations of great con- 
 fequenccto give to the Empcrour relating to 
 his mafter. The Prefect fent him to Tiberius, 
 but he, without making any particular en- 
 quiry into the matter, only keeps the man 
 •fife in cuftody. Agrippa lying under the 
 Emperour's difpleafurc was forced to make 
 intcreit to have his fervant heard. And 
 though he then informed the Empcrour of 
 words fpoken by Agrippa which were little 
 Ids than treafon, and Agrippa was imme- 
 diately thereupon confined 5 yet he was never 
 called for asrain, though Tiberius lived fix 
 months (b) after. Tacitus has mentioned 
 another inftance well nigh, or quite as re- 
 markable (Y). This flow way of think- 
 ing 
 
 (a) M^^T^i it KCAl Tie, ITipfJV fictPihWV *j TWj>«£Wff¥ yVOpit»0$* 
 
 Antiq. lib. 18. pig Si I. v. 3. 
 
 (b) Jofepb. Ant. lS. cap. vii. 
 
 (c) Cooiuhufque C3efar an fepeliri (ineret, (.De Ajinh Guild 
 Ur^uttur) non erubuit permittere, ultrcque incufarc exfus, qui 
 
Chap. III. Gospfl History. a gy 
 
 ing and a&ing was vifible in Tiberius in his 
 very youth (a). And no hiftorian of thofe 
 times is fiienc about it. Ti/ale, who had 
 fcrved Tiberius ten years, could not be ig- 
 norant of what all the world knew. He 
 might have many probable reafons to thinks 
 that, if he did not come in the Emperours 
 way, he mould never be called for. If en- 
 quiry was made for him, an cxcuic might be 
 found out that would ferve for fome time. 
 Sicknefle might be pretended, as a realon for 
 his (lay in i^/fjla, Achaia, or fome other 
 place where he was got. Perhaps this was 
 really the cafe. To be put out of his Go- 
 vernment by VitelliitS) upon the complaints 
 of the people of his province, muft have 
 been a very grievous mortification. En (lulus 
 allures us, that not long after this 'Pilate 
 made away with himlelf out of vcxatiori 
 for his many misfortunes (£). 
 
 rgum abfttdiffeKt afiteejttam coram convincerotur. Scilicet medio 
 triennio detueiat tern pus fubeundi judicium confu'ari feni tot 
 ccnfularium parenri. Tact. Ann. lib.vi. cap. 2 j. 
 
 (a) Sae/aac lenta natura ne in puero quidem latuit. Sueton. 
 in Tiber, csp. 5-7. S-.-d mirigavit SjJ3nus, non Gafli amore, 
 verum ut cunclaciones prinopis aperirentur, guar us cum Icn- 
 tum in meditando. Tacit. Ann.Wb.iv. cap. ji. 
 
 (b) YlovTioc, lUXaroc Ixi Va'.a Kvactcc[c$ iroixfattw 7rtpi7rt<rM 
 frv[*/$>opK,7$ 3 ccc, Qxcrw ot tcc 'PtifAeae/f (rvyy^^siy.tvoi, avropwsv 
 fijS itA'Jrv iyinto' Zujcb. Chrun. p, 7 3. 
 
 There 
 
288 The Credibility of the Book IT. 
 
 There is another note of time men- 
 tioned in St. John's Gofpcl, which ought al- 
 io to be confidered. Then faid the Jews, 
 Forty and fix years was this temple in 
 building : and wilt thou rear it tip in three 
 
 rtl .. days? 
 
 lo. I suppose, that the objection to be 
 
 formed upon this text is to this effect.. Thele 
 words were fpoken by the Jews at the firft 
 Palfover of our Saviour's public miniflry, and 
 the next after his Baptiun by^John. The 
 Temple which the Jews (poke of, was the 
 Temple then before their eyes, and which 
 Herod had rebuilt or repaired. But Herod 
 did not make the propoial for rebuilding it 
 till the eighteenth year of his reign, reckon- 
 ing from the death of Antigonus. There- 
 fore, if the fifteenth of Tiberius's reign men- 
 tioned by St.Luke be the fifteenth of his Pro- 
 confular Empire, and not of his fole empire 
 after the death of Augufiits, this temple 
 could not have been fo long as forty fix years 
 in building, at the time thefe words were 
 fpoken. 
 
 T o this I might anfwer, That an ob- 
 jection taken from Jofephus's account of 
 the time when Herod repaired the temple 
 can be of little moment : becaufe in one 
 
 place 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History. 2.89 
 
 place he fays, that Herod repaired the tem- 
 ple in the fifteenth (/?), and in another the 
 eighteenth year (J?) of his reign. As the 
 fifteenth year from the death of Antigonus 
 is fuppofed to be coincident with the eigh- 
 teenth year from the time in which Herod 
 was declared King of Jadea by the Senate 
 of Romefovnz may be difpofed to conclude, 
 that, when Jofephus fays Herod $ propofalto 
 rebuild the Temple was made to the Jews 
 in the eighteenth year of his reign, he com- 
 putes from the time in which Herod was de- 
 clared King by the Roman Senate. 
 
 But I do not infill upon this, and am 
 willing to allow, that Herod made the propo- 
 fal to the Jews of building their temple in 
 the eighteenth year of his reign from the 
 death of Antigonus. 
 
 A n d I think it is as likely that the yews, 
 in thefe words recorded by St. John, refer 
 to the time of Herod's propofal, as to the 
 time in which he began adualiy to repair the 
 temple. It is moft probable, that Herod made 
 this offer to xhzjewijh people, when afiem- 
 bled together at one of their great Feafts. 
 This therefore would be the moft folemn and 
 
 (a) De Beil. lib. i. cap. z i . inic. 
 lb) Ant. lib. xv. cap, n. frit. 
 
 U remark^ 
 
ac o The Credibility of the Boot II. 
 
 remarkable Epocha of rebuilding the temple, 
 which work undoubtedly he fet about as 
 foon afterwards as he could. 
 
 And it is very common to fay, that men 
 do things, when they propofe to do them, or 
 begin to do them. Thus jofephus fays in 
 his War of the Jews : c In the fifteenth year 
 
 * of his reign he [Herod] repaired the tem- 
 1 pie it felf, and enclofed a fpot of ground 
 c about it, of double the compafs with that 
 
 * which furrounded it before. This was done 
 € at a vafi: expence,and is a proof of hisuncom- 
 
 * mon magnificence (a). We will allow 
 that the fifteenth year in this place ought to 
 be correded by his dnttqwties^vhctc he lays, 
 that c in the eighteenth year of his reign 
 c Herod projected [or undertook] the re- 
 ' building the Temple, which was thegreat- 
 1 eft of all his works (by. But then it ap- 
 pears from hence, that Herod is faid byjo- 
 fephus in one place to do what in another he 
 is only faid at the fame time to propofe or 
 begin. 
 
 (a) TiiVTSzciiGiKoiTa yxv trti t«$ GatrtXuoiSy oevrov n rev vaov 
 
 TrcAvrzXuu.- De Bell. lib. i. cap. 21. init. 
 
 (£) Tore yxv ox,TaxsiihKc&Tis tyi$ 'Hp#^V fiet<ritetc(s ysyovorog 
 ivieevrts,- — - egyoy » to tv%ov £7rsj3xMro t rev viav "$ OsS Si ocvtv 
 
 K*T*a-Kw&r#i%» Ant, lib* xv. cag, xi. init. 
 
 Suppo- 
 
Chap. HI. Gospel History. 291 
 
 Supposing that the Jews in this text 
 of Join refer to the time in which Herod 
 made the propofal of rebuilding the temple, 
 we will fee how this term of forty fix years 
 will agree with the Suppofition that St. Lukes 
 fifteenth year of Tiberius is the fifteenth of 
 his Proconiular Empire. 
 
 I f the fifteenth of Tiber/m's Proconfular 
 Empire began the 2 8th of Auguft A.U.778* 
 A. D. 2 5. (according to Dr. Tagis opinion) 
 and if John the Baptift began to preach in 
 November that year, but did not baptize 
 Jefus till after he had preached a year and 
 fome months, then the Paffover at which 
 thefe words were ipoken was the PaiTbver 
 A. U. 780. A.D. 27. 
 
 Or if the fifteenth of Tiberius'* reign 
 began A. U. 779, A.D. 26, zndjohn be- 
 gan then to preach, and Jefus was baptized 
 by him, fome time before the paflbver next 
 following? (till thefe words would be fpoke 
 by thejews at the Paffover A.U.78o,A.D.27. 
 
 The eighteenth year of Herod's reign, 
 from the death of Antigo?ius. is fuppofed 
 to have begun fome time in A. U. 734. 
 Herod might make his offer to the jews of 
 rebuilding the Temple at the Feaft of Ta- 
 bernacles, in November that year. From 
 November A. U. 734. to the Paffover A, U, 
 
 V z 78c AD. 
 
2.92 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 780, A. D. 27, is almoft forty five years and 
 an half. At this time therefore the jews 
 might not improperly fay > the temple had 
 been forty fix years in building. The forty 
 fixth year was then current. And it was 
 to the pnrpofe of the Jews, rather to add 
 to, than to diminifh the time which had 
 been fpent in that work. So that there is 
 no time more fuitable to thefe words of the 
 Jews than the Pafiover A. D 27. Though 
 there is no manner of inconfiftence between 
 underftanding the fifteenth of Tiberius, of his 
 Proconfular Empire, and fuppofingthat thefe 
 words were fpoken at the Pallbver A. D. 28. 
 And then the Temple might have been a- 
 bove forty fix years in building. 
 
 What has been here faid, may be fuf- 
 ficient to (hew, that St. Luke might compute 
 the reign of Tiberius from the epocha of his 
 Proconfular Empire; that if he did, Jefus 
 might be faid, with great exa&nefie and pro* 
 priety, to be about thirty years of age at his 
 baptifm ; and that there is nothing in this 
 iuppofition inconfiftent with any other notes 
 of time mentioned in the Gofpels. 
 
 §. IV. Another way of folving 
 this difficulty is this. Thefe words of Saint 
 Luke : And Jefus himfelf began to be about 
 
 thirty 
 
Chap.III. Gospel History. 293 
 
 thirty years of age, maybe understood with Ltt *' m - 
 fome latitude. Jefus might be thirty {a) two 
 years of age or more at this time. The 
 word about (wVei) is often uied, whereapre- 
 cife exadtnefle is not intended or expcdlcd. 
 Matth.xiv. 21. %ylnd tkey that had eaten 
 were about five thoufandiuzti TrtvToLX.t<r%i- 
 AioO, befide wom:n and children. And the 
 other Evangelifts, in fpeaking of this Mira- 
 cle, ufc the fame phrafe *. St. Luke iays>*M*rkvL 
 k^451. ii. 41. Kjind the fame day there ^. 
 were added unto them about [a>a-g!] three i+. 
 thouf and fouls. And with a like latitude f^* 
 does this phrafe] feem to be ufed in many 
 other places f\ t Luke'u 
 
 I? is Kepler's opinion, that round andxxit.4,1. 
 decimal numbers may be ufed with sreatS 1 ',"'. 44 ' 
 
 C? john I. 49. 
 
 latitude : And that a pcrfon may be very truly *&• v. 36. 
 faid to be about thirty years of age, if he be 
 above five and twenty and under thirty five: 
 But that,if aperfon be laid to be about eight and 
 
 (a) Ex noftra quidem Chronologia, fcquitur Chriftum jam 
 annum xxxii. evafifle cum ad baptifmum acceffit. Nil tamen 
 in ea , vel abfurdi, vel .pugrme aliquid cum Luca inteiiigi- 
 mus, cum de viro annos duos & triginca nato, cujus aeta s 
 dubitanter profcrtur, non incongrue dici poflk, eft annorum 
 
 circiter triginta Iterum iterumque monemus, ex phrafi 
 
 Lucae, Jofephi de fupremo Herodis anno chronologia damna- 
 ri nequit. Bafnage Ann. Pol. Ec. Ante Dqm.j.n, vi. vid, etiam 
 ad A. D. 30. num. iv. 
 
 U 3 twenty 
 
2,94 The Credibility of the BookIL 
 
 twenty or two and thirty years of age, it is 
 to be fuppofed he is exaftly fo old, or not 
 above a month or two more or lefs. (a). 
 And indeed many examples of this ufe 
 of round numbers may be found in the (£) 
 beft writers, even without the particle da-eU 
 about \ which of it felf feems to be a hint, 
 that the writer does intend to be underftood 
 with fome latitude. 
 
 fa) Hie receptus mos eft iinguis omnibus ut circiter ^odo 
 dicamus quicquid eft inter 45*00 & 5500. Quare fie etiam in 
 noftro exemplo quicquid eft inter 15 &: 35, id omne circiter 
 jp did poteft. Alia efTet voculae ratio, fi praefixiflet numero 
 non rotundo. Ut fi dixiflet circiter 28 annos, vel circiter 32. 
 annos. Quae enim infra decern nominatim exprimuntur, iis 
 appofita vocula crater raro unum annum folidum ia 
 dubio ponat, fed fere menfes tantum aut dies aliquot numero 
 paucos 6c infra quantitatem anni folidi. Keplerus de Anno 
 C. Natali. Cap-xii. p. 140, 141. 
 
 (b) Ab illo enim profe&u viribus datis tantum valuit, ut 
 in quadraginta deinde annos tutam pacern haberer. Livius, 
 Lib.i. cap, xv. n. 7. This refers to Nvma's reign, of which 
 
 afterwards Lhie fays Romulus feptem 8c triginta regna- 
 
 vit annos, Numa Tres et quadraginta. ibid. cap. xxi. When 
 the City of Rome was taken by the Gauls and the remnant 
 of the people were entering into the Capitol, Livit ufes thefe 
 words: Verfae inde adhortationes ad agmen juvenumj quos 
 in Capitolium atque in arcem profequebantur, commendmuts 
 viriuti eorum invent tuque urbis per trecentos sexaginta 
 
 annos omnibus bellis viftrkls,- fortunam. id. lib. v. capo 
 
 40. Camillas not long after in the very fame year, in his 
 fpeech to diflwade them from removing to Ve'u\ fays; Tre- 
 centesimus sexagesimus quintus annus urbis, Jguirites, 
 agitur. ibid. cap. 54, vid. cundem Lib. vi. cap. 28. n. 7, 2c 
 ■]F#flff. Cleric, notas. 
 
 If 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History. 29 f 
 
 I f we may take St. Ltike's words in this 
 manner, there is fcarce any need that I fhould 
 trouble the reader with any calculation, to 
 fhew the agreement of his numbers with the 
 time of our Saviour's nativity. 
 
 The fifteenth of Tiberius's fole empire 
 began A. U. 781. A. D. 28. If Jefus was 
 baptized the 6th January A, U. 7S2,A.D. 
 29, he would be but fome months above 
 thirty three years of age, though he was 
 born fo foon as September A. U. 748. And 
 if he was born A. U. 749? then, though his 
 baptifm be placed in the beginning of A,U« 
 783, A. D. 30, (till he would be little more 
 than thirty three years of age. 
 
 All the other notes of time in the Go- 
 fpels are alio very eafily reconciiedwith this fif- 
 teenth of Tiberius^s fole Empire. Tontius 
 Pilate came into Judea before the PaiTover 
 in the 12th year of Tiberius $ fole Empire, 
 A.U. 779, A. D. 26. (as has been fhewn) : 
 And continued there ten years. Therefore 
 he was undoubtedly Governour of Judeazt 
 the commencement of John the Baptift's 
 miniftry, and till after our Saviour's cruci- 
 fixion. 
 
 A s for thofe words of the Jews fpoken 
 
 by them at the firft PaflTovcrof our Saviour's 
 
 U 4 ttiiniflry s 
 
z$6 The Credibility of the BookIL 
 
 miniftry, Forty fix years has this temple 
 been building, if is but to (iippofe that they 
 referred, not to the time when Herod made 
 the propofal of repairing the Temple in the 
 1 8th year of his reign, but to the time when 
 in purfuance of that propofal he a&ually fct 
 about the work , after he had got all things 
 in a readinefle for it, and it will be eafily 
 perceived that thefe words are agreeable to 
 truth. 
 
 I do not prefume to determine, which of 
 thefe two Solutions is the jufteft : or whether 
 St. Luke intended the fifteenth of Tiberius's 
 Proconfular Empire when he was made Col- 
 legue with i_Auguftus y or the fifteenth of his 
 fole Empire. In order to do this, it would 
 be needful, as I apprehend, to confiderthe 
 time allotted by the Evangelifts to the mini- 
 ftry of John the Baptift and our Saviour? 
 the Chronology of the Affs of the Apoftles* 
 compared with fome pafiages in the Epiftles, 
 and alio the teftimonies of the ancient Chri- 
 ftian writers. As I have not here room for 
 all thefe premifes, it may be befl: to wave the 
 conclufion. All I fhall fay at prefent is, 
 that the Suppofition, that St. Luke intend- 
 ed the former of thefe two epochaes, feems 
 to be very much favoured by the firft Chri- 
 
 ftiansj 
 
Chap. III. Gospel History. 197 
 
 ftians, who generally place the crucifixion of 
 Jefus at the PalTover of the 1 $ th of Tiberius's 
 fole Empire, when the two Gemini were 
 Confuls of Rome, A. D. 29 : And that 
 their teftimonies are of great weight with 
 me. I fubjoin in the Margin (a) a few of 
 them, for the fake of thofe who may hap- 
 pen to be unacquainted with the fe matters. 
 I apprehend that each of thefe is a 
 very good Solution of the objection ftated 
 at the beginning of this chapter, though I 
 believe many will think it is there ftated by 
 me in a manner very favourable to an object- 
 or. Nay, I imagine I have laid what is fuf- 
 ficient to fatisfy any reafonable perfon, that 
 there does not lie any objection againftany 
 notes of time mentioned by the Evangelifts 
 
 (a) Hujus [Ttkrii] qnimo decinio anno imperii patfus eft 
 
 Chriftus Quae paftio hujus exterminii intra tempora Ixx. 
 
 hebdomadarum perfe&a eft iub Tiberio Caetere, CofTI Ru- 
 bellio Gemino St Rufio Gem : no, rrenfe Martio, temporibus 
 Pafchae. Tertul. adverf. Jud. c 8. Arque exinde u/que ad an- 
 num quintum decimum Tiberii Caefaiis, quando paflus eft 
 Chriftus, numerantur 2nni fexaginta. Afrkanus apud Hteroi;* 
 Dan. C.ix. Qui fuit fub imperio Tiberii Caefaris; cujus anno 
 
 quinto decimo, id eft, duobus Geminis confulibus Judaei 
 
 Chriftum cruci arHxerunt. Lattxnt. Inft. I.4. c. 10. Extremis 
 temporibus Tiberii Caefari.s, uc fcriptum legimus, Dominus 
 
 cofter Jefus Chriftus a Judaeis cruciatus eft, duobus 
 
 Geminis confulibus. ds Mart. Perfecttt. c. 2. 
 
 from 
 
29 8 The Credihilitjr of the Book II. 
 
 from the Chronology of other ancient writers. 
 This is iufficient to my prefent purpofe. 
 
 I h ave nothing farther to add here, be- 
 fide this one obfervation. 
 
 I t is no difparagement to the facred Hi- 
 ftoiians, that we are fomewhat at a lofs to 
 fettle precifeiy the very year of fome of thofe 
 events which they have related. Many im- 
 portant fads related by the beft hiftorians are 
 attended with Chronological difficulties. I 
 fhall give but one inftance, an inftance which 
 we are nearly concerned with. Joftphus 
 was a man of a learned education, is a pro- 
 feffcd writer of hiftory, of the civil and 
 facred hiftory of his country : and is general- 
 ly allowed to be an accurate writer. He has 
 exprefly mentioned two epochaes of the 
 commencement of Herod's reign, and has 
 given an account of his death, and the du- 
 ration of his government. He has writ 
 the hiftory of the whole reign of this Prince. 
 He has related the Series of events, and the 
 Succeflion of the Princes and Governours of 
 Judea before and after Herod. He has put 
 down the years of the Olympiads, and the 
 names of the Coniuls, when fome of the 
 mod remarkable of thefe events happened. 
 Nor Ufve all Roman and Greek hiftorians 
 
 been 
 
Chap. III. GospelHistory. aop 
 
 been filent about Herod or his defcendents, 
 and the jewijh Affairs, near this time : Not 
 to mention Talmudical or other jewtfh Au- 
 thor*. And yet, notwithstanding all thefe 
 advantages, whether through prejudice or 
 want of fufficient light, it has happened, that 
 learned men have differed widely about the 
 time of Herod's death, and are not yet come 
 to a full agreement. 
 
 Chap: 
 
3 oo The Credibility of the Book II 
 
 Chap. IV. 
 Of Annas and Caiaphas. 
 
 $. I. The difficulty relating to their being 
 both high-priefts at the fame time 
 confidered. §. II. Of Caiaphas being 
 high-priefl that year, in winch Jefus was 
 crucified. 
 
 E have another objection againft 
 the account St. Luke gives of 
 the Government Judea was 
 under, when John the Baptift began to 
 preach. Now in the fifteenth year of the 
 reign of Tiberius Cefar, Tontius Pilate 
 being govemour of Judea y and Herod being 
 Tetrarch of Galilee. Annas and Caia- 
 phas BEING THE HIGH-PRIETS the WOrd of 
 
 *Luhe «\Qod came unto John * 
 
 I t is obje&ed, that it appears from the 
 books of the Old Tefi l ament, the writings of 
 Jofephus and other Jews, that there was 
 
 but 
 
Chap.IV. Gospel History. 301 
 
 but one High-Prieft among the Jews at a 
 time. St, Luke therefore has been miftaken 
 in faying, that Annas and Caiaphas were 
 both High-Priefts. 
 
 Much has been writ upon this fubjeft, 
 and learned men (a) have been of divers 
 opinions. I hope I may be excufed, if in 
 this place I depart from the method I ufually 
 take in confidering thefe obje&ions, and do 
 not fet down all the Sentiments of writers 
 upon this point. 
 
 I shall here therefore do little more 
 than deliver my own Sentiments concerning 
 this matter in a few particulars, which, I 
 hope, will contain a iufficient anfwer to the 
 objection. 
 
 1. It would be extremely unreafonable 
 to impute to St. Luke fo great a miftake as 
 the fuppofing, that there were properly two 
 High-Priefts among the Jews at the fame 
 time. He appears in the reft of his hiftory 
 well acquainted with jewifb affairs. It is 
 plain, that he knew very well there was 
 one who was in the office of High-Prieft: 
 ch. xxii. 50. And one of them fmote the Ser- 
 
 (a) Vid. Baron, Ann. A. D. 31. num. 8.- Cafatdon in 
 
 Earon. Exerc.xiii. Num. v. Selden de SuccefT. iuPcntif.Ub. i. 
 &$*u» Hammond. Aunot. cum multis aliis, 
 
 <vant 
 
3 o x The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 *vant of the High-Priest.-- 54. Then took 
 
 they him and led him, and brought him to 
 
 the High-Priest's houfe. 
 
 2. I t is likely, that the power which the 
 
 jewijh people were poffefied of under the 
 Romans was lodged chiefly in the hands of 
 two perfons : and it may be fuppofed, the 
 Jews chofe to have it fo. When they had 
 refolved upon the War with the Romans 9 
 Jofrphus fays: c They afiembled in the tern- 
 4 pie, and appointed feveral Generals. And 
 ' 7°f e ph the Son of Gorion, and the High- 
 1 Vridb Ananus, were chofen to befupreme 
 < governours (a) of all things in the City.' 
 I have not obferved this paflage quoted by 
 any upon this occafion : Whether it be 
 material or not, the reader will judge. But 
 it has inclined me to fuppofe,that about this 
 time there were ufually among the yews two 
 perfons, to whom the government was chiefly 
 committed. I muft however advertife the 
 reader, that Ananus, here called High Prieft, 
 was not then in the office of the Prieft-hood. 
 
 (a) K.xl (TWct.Ggoi<r6svTS$ h$ to lspov y T^cArnyhc, c&xB^ufav X %o- 
 
 ''Avdi®^, T Tt 71O.T0C TW 7T0>UV OCZ-lZVT&V eLVTOKgCZTOptS, Xj [/je6?\l?0& 
 
 Tht THTst} Tq$ voters knyiyur DeBell, z, c, 10. §. 3. 
 
 3. Since 
 
Chap. IV. Gospel History. 303 
 
 3. Since Caiaphas was now properly 
 High-Pricft, zwda^innas had been fo 5 if the 
 latter was now in fome pod of authority, 
 they might be both faid very properly to be 
 High-Priefts at this time. Joftphtis often 
 calls Saturninus and Volumnhis Prefidents 
 or Governours of Syria ( a X though Sa- 
 turninus only was Prefident, and Volumnhis 
 the Emperour's Procurator, that is, the officer 
 that took care of the revenue. 
 
 There happened a difturbance between 
 the Jews and the Samaritans in the reign of 
 Claudius. Camanus the Procurator of Jade a 
 was not able to compofe it : appeals were 
 made to Quadratus Prefident of Syria. He 
 having punifhed feveral c fent two others of 
 c the moft powerful men of the Jews, as 
 1 alfo the high Priests Jonathan and 
 
 * Ananias, and Ananas the Son of this laft 
 1 mentioned perfon, and fome other confide- 
 
 * rable men to Cefar (fi)\ I take this paflage 
 of jofephas (which has been often cited by 
 
 (di) UeXbiUKti j£ hi 'Zccryg'/ivov i^Oiyru. <£ 'Qvotepnov ras ZvgU<} 
 iytftovets' Ant. lib. 1 6, cap. x. p. 741. v. 1, 1. To% Kui<rccg<&-> 
 
 qytfAoa-iv Xccrzpvivu) n y^ 'OvoXxfAvia tjrt Tt ZeCTVgviviS j£ 'Ou- 
 
 cteyAiX r Swp/iae? hrira,T&T*v. ibid, cap.ix. p. 734- *•%$• &37« 
 
 (£) Auo j STigxs T ovvxrururay, k} ts$ «f/i<fp*<s 'lvHt$n» Xj 
 Avocviuv, rov ri txtx 7TotT^ot ''Avwm — — xvi7rff*ytv fat Katcraf «£. 
 De Bell. lib. ii. cap. xii. §. 6. 
 
 learned 
 
304 The Credibility of the Book If. 
 
 learned men) to be very near parallel with 
 Sr. Luke's. 
 
 JON A THA N had been High-Prieft, 
 but had been put out long before now by 
 Vitellius {a) : Ananias was (J?) now High- 
 Prieft. In like manner,in the cafe in quefiion, 
 Annas had formerly been High-Prieft, but 
 Caiaphas was now in that office. 
 
 I a m the more inclined to think Jofe- 
 phus's ftile here parallel with St. Ltike's* 
 becaufe it appears from another place, where 
 Jofephus mentions this affair, that Ananus 7 
 the third perfon named, was then Captain 
 of the Temple (c). From whence I con- 
 clude, that the Three perfons here mentioned 
 were then in the three chief pofts of the 
 jewijh civil and facred Government. He 
 fpeaks indeed of two others, whom he calls 
 the moft powerful of the Jews. But I ap- 
 prehend they were fo only in refpecT: of their 
 influence. It is reafonable to fuppofe, that 
 the perfons named were in the moft eminent 
 Stations. 
 
 There is another particular, in which 
 thefe two paffages are parallel: Jonathan^ 
 
 (a) Ant. 1 8. cap t 6. §. 3 . 
 
 (b) Ibid. 20. cap. 4. p. 886. v. 411 
 [a) Ant. 20, c.f. p. 88$. v. 36, 
 
 who 
 
Chap. IV. Gospel History, gojf 
 
 who had been High-Priefr, is named be- 
 fore ^Ananias, then in office : The two 
 names ftand in the fame order in Saint 
 Luke. I fuppofe, that thefe proportions 
 may afford a clear Solution of this diffi- 
 culty. 
 
 The learned Selden conje&ures, that 
 Annas and Caiaphas are not mentioned in 
 this place by St. Luke on account of any 
 Sacred fun&ion they difcharged, but as they 
 were the two perfons who had then the chief 
 authority under the Romans in the Civil ad- 
 ministration of the jewijh affairs : that Annas 
 was now Prince of the Sanhedrim, and 
 Caiaphas the father of it$ and that There- 
 fore Annas is firft named, as being in the 
 more honourable ftation of the civil govern- 
 ment. He fuppofes that thefe two pods might 
 then be annual, that Annas was Prince of 
 the Sanhedrim when John the Baptift be- 
 gan his miniftry, and that Caiaphas was 
 Prince when our Saviour was crucified. 
 And therefore St. John fays particularly, 
 that Caiaphas was High-Ptieft that fame 
 year *. But that afterwards when Peter* j ?nx\. 
 and John were called before the counci'M 9 ^ 1 ^ 
 Annas \ who is firft f named, was Trincef. 
 X and 
 
306 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 and Caiaphas , Father of the Sanhe- 
 drim (a). 
 
 S ELT) EN offers thefe thoughts, as 
 conjectures only. I hope therefore, it will 
 not be deemed prefumption, to be of another 
 mind, or to offer fome different thoughts 
 upon this fubjed. 
 
 A s Caiaphas was now in the office of 
 the Priefthood when John the Baptift be- 
 gan his miniftry, »I fuppofe that Caiaphas 
 is mentioned by St. Luke on the account o^ 
 
 (a) Hinc, fi conjcdlurae venia detur, exiftimarim, Annam 
 Sc Caiaprnm Pontifices fimul a D. Luca di&os, non quafacrae 
 f un&ionis dignitas illo nomine denotatury fed qua civilis eorum 
 adminiff ratio, ut £c ceterorum quibuicum conjunguntur, ad 
 ipfum annum, de quo verba ibi fiunt, indicandum denotaretur. 
 Scilicet Annam tunc fuifle Synedrii Principem, Caiapham vero 
 
 ejufdem Pattern. Ita demum cur Caiaphas, quern facram 
 
 dignitatem ipfam velut Aharonis fucceflbrem geffiiTe inter- 
 vaiio illo ex Jofcpho docemur, Annae poftponatur, ratio no n 
 inepta reddi poteft. Etenim Principi Synedrii Pater Synedrii 
 erat Temper iecundar!us. S.'d vero nee Principis nee Patris 
 Synedrii mur.us Temper perpctuum erat, fed ab alio ad alium, 
 pro re nara tranfiatum. Quod ex tituio Talmudico Horsijoth, 
 cap. ii». aliiique Magifttcrum commentariis elicitur. Et forfan 
 
 tunc temporis annuum erat. Atque illinc forfan altera 
 
 ilia qua.Pcio de Cai3phae pentifkatu fuo anno apud D.Joannem 
 
 defignato folvenda Adeo ut Anno Tiberii xv, feu in loco 
 
 D. Lucae, Annas eflet Princeps Synedrii, Caiaphas Pater, anno 
 vero Pafiionis Annas Pater, Caiaphas Princeps j poflmcdum 
 vero Annas, inter mos utpote eminentiiTimus, itidem Prin. 
 ceps, 5c Caiaphas Pater, ut in A&orum quarto. SilJen. dc 
 Succ In Pont if. lib. i. c. xii. 
 
 the 
 
Chap.IV. Gospel History. 507 
 
 the High Priefthood, and the Civil Authority 
 joined with it ; and that, the jewijh govern- 
 ment being at this time under the Romans 
 Arijiocratical, Annas is mentioned together 
 with Caiap has, as being the other chief per- 
 fon in the jewijh adm initiation. But I am 
 of opinion, that we have not fufficient light 
 at prefent to determine, what Pod of ho- 
 nour Annas was in, though that of Prince 
 of the Sanhedrim be as likely as any. How- 
 ever, I cannot eafily perfwade my felf, that 
 during the jews fubjeclion to the Romans, 
 the Prince of the Sanhedrim, or any other 
 jew, not in the High Pricfthood, was equal, 
 much lefs fuperior to him who enjoyed that 
 Office : unlefs, when there was fome jewijh 
 Prince appointed Governour of the Temple 
 by the Roman Emperour. If Jofef bus's 
 authority be fufficient to decide this matter, 
 it is plain the High-Pried had the chief pow- 
 er in the jewijh nation under the Romans. 
 This may be concluded from hence, that he 
 has preferved the Succeflion of the High- 
 Pricfts, and of them only, to the deftru&i- 
 on of the Temple. But if there had been 
 after the removal of Archelaus any perfons 
 in an office of fuperior authority to the High- 
 Prieft, he would have alfo given us their 
 
 X z names* 
 
308 The Credibility of tie Book II. 
 
 names. We fhould alfo in all probabili- 
 ty have met with feme accounts in his hi- 
 ftory, of the putting out of thefe Officers by 
 the Roman Govcrnours, when they did 
 not behave to fatisfadion. And indeed jo- 
 fephus feems to me exprefly to fay, that the 
 High-Prieft was the chief perfon in the 
 jewifh nation under the Romans. Having 
 at the conclufion of his Antiquities reckoned 
 up the jewifh High-Priefts he fays : ' Some 
 4 of thefe adminiftered affairs under Herod 
 1 the King and his Son Archelaas : after 
 € their death the adminiftration was Ari- 
 « Jlocratkaly but the Prefidentfhip of 
 1 the nation was committed to the High- 
 * Priefts (a). 
 
 Farther, I apprehend no myftery at 
 all in the order in which thefe two per- 
 fons are named by St. Luke. Ancient wri- 
 ters feem not to be very folicitous about 
 the order in which they name perfons who 
 are pretty near equal (b). 1 fuppofe that 
 
 Caiaphas 
 
 (#} K«i TlViC, f& UVTOIV l7tcXlTVJ(TlX,)IT0 S7Ti ' T2 'Rptohi fict(TlXtV6V- 
 T©°, K^ IKl 'Ag%l?H2C% 5" 770C.tch>$ CiVTH' [AIT& £i T»» T%TUV TtXiW 
 
 r«y, afiTOKfciTicc >/, w v KoAiTiicty tjjv 3 %eos acta? & tQyxq ot 
 uPXtifizic, 7T£77i<rswTo' Jofeph. Antiq, xx. c. 9. fin. 
 
 (£) Thus Herodotus fays that Cambyfes was the Son of 
 Cyrus and Cajfandana : andpreiently after, that he was Son of 
 this woman and Cyrus. Ua^.nQi tw jZccr^vv Ktf^wnjs, 
 
Chap.TV. Gospel History. 309 
 
 Caiaphas was at this time chief in dignity 
 and authority in the government : But that 
 neverthelefic, there is no abfurdity or im- 
 propriety in naming Annas firft, inafmuch 
 as he was father-in-law to Caiaphas, and was 
 pall: thePricfthood. 
 
 §. II. It will perhaps be expected I fhould 
 here fay fomewhat to a Text of St. John, 
 which has a relation to this matter, and which 
 does appear at flrft to be a very difficult place. 
 Kyind one of them named Caiaphas, being 
 High-Priest that (a) same year, faid 
 unto them, ye know nothing at all, nor confi- 
 der that it is expedient for us, that one man 
 fhould die for the people, and that the whole 
 nation perifh not. And this fpake he, not of 
 himfelf : but being (bj High-Priest that 
 
 Kypy lav rtmi ^ lLa.es a.^a.n t % tcLvty^ j iv.e, ywxtx.o$ lav 
 
 vretit ?£ Ki/^s KecfApvcti? Euterp. inir. Jofephus fay, Herod 
 had two Sons by a Samaritan woman, namely, An tit as 
 and Arckelam. Soon after, Archdatts is mentioned firft, h 
 ~ y.u,k & "Za/jjupt&v i6vx$ fjjia., Kj zroAoic, £vTjj 'Avt.ttuc i£ 'A«- 
 
 TgoCpas iiyjir Antiq. 17. c. i.§ 3. Jofahus hys again, th3t 
 Herod called to the Council at Berytam Salome and Pheroras, 
 Z><? Bell. 1. 1. c.2~.§. 3. Afterwards Tero the old Soldier com- 
 plains to Hercd, that he hearkned to fkeroras and Salome a- 
 gainft his own Sons, ibid. §.4. 
 
 (a) 'Apxupi'jq av y iviuvris ixLvx (6)'AX^a keyjtyujc, 
 
 61V X iViOtVTiS tKW% } 7o[0$qv}TiV<rZV. 
 
 X 3 YEAR 
 
3io The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 year, he prophesied that jefus Jhould 
 die for that nation: and not for that na- 
 tion only, but that alfo he Jhould gather 
 
 john\\. together in one the children of God that 
 
 w—%1. <-jy ere fcattered abroad* 
 
 There arc here two things which need 
 
 to be explained 5 firft, Why Caiaphas is 
 
 iaid to be High-Prieft that fame year : And 
 
 fecondly, What is meant by his prophefying y 
 
 being High -Vr left. 
 
 Some have thought that the Phrafe, 
 being High* Priefi that year, implies that 
 St. John fuppofed the High Priefthood was 
 annual. And upon this account they have 
 been willing to charge him with a great 
 miftake. For Tontius Pilate was Gover- 
 siour of J /idea ten years, and Caiaphas 
 was put into the Priefthood by Valerius 
 Grains, Pilate's Predeceflbr 5 and conti- 
 nued in it 5 till after T Hate's removal. 
 Selden thought that by High-Pricft is meant 
 the chief man of that nation, and particu- 
 larly the Prince of the Sanhedrim , which 
 poft might be at that time annual. For my 
 own part, I think, that year (as it ought to 
 have been rendered, and as the fame phrafe 
 Is rendered v.$i, and not that fame year) 
 denotes no moi:e than at fh#t time. It is 
 
 yery 
 
Chap.IV. Gospel History. 3 ji 
 
 very common to put years and days in the 
 plural number, for time. After many days 
 thou Jhalt be vifited: In the latter years 
 thou jhalt come into the land that is brought 
 back from the faord, &c. Then (hall the EzsL .. a 
 
 m ' ** 1 w / xxxv 111. S. 
 
 offerings of Judah be pleafant unto the 
 Lord, as in the days of old, and as in UaXach% 
 former years. There are other texts per- jli - 4- 
 haps more appofite to our purpofc. And 
 thou Jhalt go unto the prieft that J> hall be in xxvi/5. 
 those days. And he fa all dwell in that 
 City, until the death of the high prieft that e{ 
 fhall be 'in those days. Thilo ufes the word 
 day, in the fingular number, in the fame man- 
 ner : Speaking of the trial of Jcaloufy, he fays, 
 the man and the woman fhall go up to the 
 temple, c and the man (landing before the 
 ' altar fhall declare thecaufe of his jcaloufy 
 1 in theprefence of him who is Pried at that 
 1 {a) day'.^ All that St. John feys therefore 
 is,that Caiaphas was High Prieft at that time, 
 or theHigh-Prieft of that time. And if we 
 ought to iuppofe any thing emphatical in the 
 cxprelYion, which yet I cannot fee, I appre- 
 hend it arifes from the diftance between the 
 
 (a) Ken f£ uw.o fczc, unrixfu y fiapx, xx^ovroc, & kcct ixuUit 
 t\v i-yApciv ligojpivx, SqXiSTU t\v VTrovotxy 'ccpot' k, A. De Legibus 
 Special, p. 785. C. 
 
 X 4 time, 
 
3 1 x The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 time of the event and the writing. Saint 
 John writing his Gofpel a confiderable time 
 after the crucifixion of Jcfus, when many 
 might be fuppofed to be ignorant who was 
 then High-Pried, and there having been un- 
 der the Romans frequent removals made in 
 that office, it was natural enough for him to 
 expreffe this circumdance with fome peculiar 
 emphafis, or to mention it more than once. 
 The other difficulty to be confidered 
 lies in thefe words : Being High-Trieji that 
 year he prophefyed. Here I cannot perceive 
 the fenfe of this obfervation, fnppofing, with 
 Selden, High-Prieft to (land for Prince of the 
 Sanhedrim. By prophefyingl underftandin this 
 place, declaring the event, which it was in a 
 peculiar manner the office of the Pried to do, 
 when he was enquired of, or when God 
 was enquired of (a) by him concerning any 
 important matters under deliberation. Thus 
 
 (a) Then the king fent to call Ahimelech the Priest the 
 
 Son of Abitub. And Saul fat d unto h m, Why have ye 
 
 tonfplred againft me, thou and the Son of Jeffe, and haft 
 
 enquired of God for him? iSam.xxii. ti. 13. And David 
 /aid to Abiathar the Priest, Bring hither the Ephod. Then 
 
 j aid David, O Lord God of Jfrael Will the men of Keilah 
 
 deliv r me into his hand? Will Saul come down, as thy fer- 
 
 Vant hath heard? And the Lord J aid he will cone down, 
 
 1 Sam.xxiii. 10. — ij. And when Saul enquired of the Lord* 
 the Lord anfwered him not, neither by dreajm, nor by uri*i, 
 tier by prophets 3 ch. xxviii, tf e 
 
 ^ofet 
 
Chap. IV. Gospel History, 315 
 Jofephus fays : c But the PhHiftines, when 
 
 < they heard that the Hebrews had made 
 c 'David King, brought forth their army 
 
 < againft him.- But the (#) King of 
 
 c the y<?w (for he allowed not himfelf to 
 
 < do any thing without prophefy, and the 
 € command of God, and aflurance of the 
 i event from him) required the High-Piieft 
 ' to foretell him, what was the will of God? 
 c and what would be the iflue of the battle. 
 c When he had propheficd victory and pow- 
 
 < er, he led out his forces againft the Phi- 
 c liftines'. And prefently after : c The (£) 
 c King of the Israelites enquiring again of 
 c God, concerning the event of the battle, 
 c the High-Prieftprophefyed', that he fhould 
 do fo and fo, and then would have a fure 
 and ea(y victory : referring to the ftory told, 
 2 Sam. v. 32—25. 
 
 Let us now apply thefe remarks in a ge- 
 neral parajThrafe of this text of St. John. 
 Some of the council, of a different opinion 
 
 (a) 'O^jT 'IzJauav ficitri\zv$ t &&v ^ ocviu 7T£o(PyitLci$, t£ §* 
 jcsXivtrxi rov Otpv, ^ 7?sgi t itrof/jtyuv hxfizlv lyyyjjruc £Ks7vof 9 
 
 Wo^ctxov if at to r?? fAUffls tsA®-, Kfoteyuv uvrZ> % 7rpo<p7)Ttv- 
 
 v*s' Antiq. 7. c. 4. §. I. 
 
 (ft) UuMv 3 $ fix<n\iu<i t 2 'Wpct^Xirav SpOffitVlt rov 0SOV, mfi 
 
 tk TTipi tw pufflv ityhs, xoo<pi)Tivu 6 #{&*(&, k. A. ibid. 
 
 from 
 
3 14 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 from thofe whofe words are recorded v. 48, 
 having, as may be fuppofed, from confide- 
 rations taken from the difpofitions of the 
 people, the temper of the Roman Gover- 
 nour, and other circumftances of their affairs, 
 exprefled fome doubts about the fuccefle of 
 a profecution of Jefus, and the confequences 
 of taking away his life: c Caiaphas> who 
 
 * was the High-Frieft at that time, when it 
 
 * came to his turn to deliver his opinion, 
 
 * faid : You have hitherto talked very weak- 
 
 * ly and ignorantly. You may proceed in 
 c the cafe before you without hefitation. The 
 
 * taking (a) away the life of this man will 
 6 be fo far from being ruinous to the whole 
 < nation in this country and in other parts, 
 c as fome of you fear, that it will be much 
 ' for the advantage of the people oi God 
 
 * every where. This however he faid, not 
 c merely of himfelf : but being then High- 
 
 * Prieft, he foretold the iffue and event of 
 ' their counfels and of the death of Jefus : 
 
 * And that it (b) would come to paffe that 
 f Jefus would die for that nation, and not 
 
 •k\*jw Ivcc *<$ #vfy«5T©« <W72>0#wj iWsp 5 A&2, i§ [Ufi oXov to s0i>©* 
 icTaAajTflM. 
 
 « for 
 
Chap.V. Gospel History. gjy 
 c for that nation only, but that through his 
 € death he would alfo gather together in one 
 * the children of God which were fcattered 
 c abroad/ 
 
 Chap. V. 
 
 Of the different names given 
 to Herodiass firft husband 
 by the Evangelifts and Jo- 
 fephus. 
 
 COME now to confider the diffi- 
 culty hinted above (a) arifing 
 from the different names given by 
 
 the Evangelifts and Jofephus to the firft hus- 
 band of Herodias : whom they call Thilip **M*uh 
 JofephuSy Herod. I need not 
 here the paffages of the G ofpeis, or of Jo- 
 fephiis, relating to this affair. If the reader 7g. 
 will be pleafed to look back (b) he will 
 find what is fufficient for thepurpofe. 
 
 tranfcribe^;/; L 
 
 17- 
 Luke Hi. 
 
 (a) Vol. 1. p f 14. notec. 
 09— P-»*.— — l S\ 
 
 As 
 
31 6 The Credibility of t foe Boole II. 
 
 "A s Jofephus, fpcaking of this unlawful 
 marriage of Herod the Tetrarch and Hcrodias, 
 calls her firft husband Herod $ foit is certain 
 that according to him, Philip, whom Saint 
 Luke ftiles Tetrarch of Iturea and the region 
 Lukeiiii> j Trachonitis, could not be the perfon: 
 for Jofephus fays, that Herodi as's daughter 
 Salome was married to Philip, Herod's 
 Son, the Tetrarch (a) of Trachonitis. 
 Nor is there any mention made in Jofephus 
 of any other Son of Herod the Great, who 
 was called 'Philip, befide the forementioned 
 Tetrarch of Iturea and Trachonitis. 
 
 I have no reafon to fay any thing more 
 of Philip the Tetrarch than I have done al- 
 ready, having (hewn in another place (c) y 
 that St. Luke has given a juft account of 
 him. But I will here give a brief hiftory 
 of Herod, to whom Jofephus fays Hero- 
 dias was firft married 5 becaufc I apprehend 
 it may be needful for fome readers, and it will 
 be of great ufe to us upon this occafion. 
 . H EROT> was the Son of Herod the 
 Great by Mariamne daughter of Simon the 
 High-Prieft After Herod the Great had 
 
 (*) 'H ^ (tw/uTvp cu>Tm ZxXaifin GHXixxa y#/4*4T &i, 'H^ai^g 
 trxiel tZ Ttrpetpxy rm T(l^«yl'r*^• Antiq. 1 8. c. vi. §. 4. 
 (c) Vol. i, p.iz. 
 
 killed 
 
Chap. V. GospelHistory. 317 
 
 killed his two Sons Alexander and ^Arifto- 
 buhis^ he repented of what he had done, 
 and refolved to take fpecial care of their 
 children. And in particular, he contracted 
 Herodias, daughter of Ariftobulus, to the 
 above mentioned Herod (a). There happened 
 indeed afterwards fome alterations in the 
 difpofitions made by Herod the Great at 
 this time, but however this (J?) contract re- 
 mained good, as may be concluded from 
 hence : that this contrad is not mentioned 
 among thofe alterations, and becaufe in the 
 account Jofephus gives of Herod the Te- 
 trarch's unlawful marriage with Herodias, 
 her firft husband, whom fhe left in his life- 
 time, is exprefly faid to be Herod Son of 
 Mariamne the High-Pricffs daughter. 
 
 H E ROT) the Great in one of his wills, 
 made after this contrad, appointed the faid 
 Herod his Succeflbr in cafe Antipater 
 fliould die before him. But afterwards, in 
 the enquiries concerning Antipater % defign 
 to poyfon his father, it appeared that Ma- 
 riarnne, mother of Herod, had been con- 
 
 (a) 'Evsyywro ti lie, yuyjcv rv t i j zTzgc&v t 'Apire/3»Atf 
 
 Qvyurifuv, 'H^&S^ xxi^i ra ccvtx' yivircci -j ra> /3#<nA« C4i tSs 
 £ ' Atyiifiac, 4vycCT(>o$' Ant. lib. 17. C. i. p.7$T. V. I. vid. Sc 
 p. 1017. v. 36. 
 
 {b) Vid.Jofeph. p. 751. v.zo. p.JozS. v. 3$. 
 
 cerned 
 
3 1 8 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 cerned in the fame defign : whereupon He- 
 rod the Great put away Mariamne, altered 
 the claufe of his Will relating to her Son, 
 and took away the Priefthood from her fa- 
 ther (a) Simon. After this we hear no more 
 of Herod, till we have the account of He* 
 rodias's leaving him. 
 
 Here then lies our difficulty. The 
 Evangelifts call Herodias's firft husband Thi- 
 lip. It is obje&ed that they muft mean 
 ^Philip the Tetrarch. But it is plain from 
 Jofephtts, that Philip the Tetrarch was not 
 her firft husband, but Herod, fon of Herod 
 the Great by Mariamne the High-Prieft's 
 daughter. 
 
 I n anfwer to this : i. It has been faid by 
 fome, that Jofephus was miftaken. Mr.Baf- 
 nage (£) of FlottemanviUe, whom I have 
 
 often 
 
 (a) K«i £tot ruh c Hp&)Jjj5 sttHMJ* 7£ l|gy8«As j£ rov tuov e&yrijs 
 i%»Xtftys T haQwoov, its to ficta-itevrrut ^Ji^vnyjiveut ixsivif j£ 
 rov 7nv8i(>6V tw cci'^i^aoruv^j a.tyzi'Xct.To "Ztpc-jvuTcv a BoyQii' Antiq. 
 17. civ. p.757- v -43- vid - Sc P- 10 33- v. 30. 
 
 (b) Nulla ergo excufatio Jofepho parari poteft. Cujus nar- 
 ration!, ilia Evangeliftarum, mifia vel eorum uyx^cc^rwioc 9 
 dubio procul eft anteponenda, cum teftes 8c plures, & anti- 
 quiores fuerint, 8c rationes longe graviores habuerint diligen- 
 tius inquirendi in caufas mortis illatae Joanni, quas ducunt ex 
 Herodiadis, Philippo Legitimo viro, contra jus 8c fas, at> 
 Antipae ereptaeodio, in Joannem, fceleftas nuptias damnantem, 
 
 Equi- 
 
Chap. V. Gospel History. 319 
 
 often quoted, is fully perfwaded, that Vhilip* 
 Tctrarcli of Iturea and Trachonitis^ was He- 
 rodias's firft husband. Befide that the Evan- 
 gelifts lived nearer the time of the Event than 
 Jofephus, he fays, they had more reafon to 
 be well informed in this matter than Jofe- 
 phus, and they are three to one. Mr. Baf- 
 nage does not deny Herod's, having had a 
 fon of his own name by the High-Prieft's 
 daughter: but he fays, this fon died before 
 his father. And he thinks, that Jofepkus 
 fays as much, and has allured us that after 
 Antipater was dead, Herod had no fons 
 left, befide Arehelaus^ Herod Antipas, and 
 Vhilipy betwixt whom he divided his king- 
 dome. And therefore Jofepkus is guilty of 
 a moft flagrant felf-contradi&ion in making 
 the Son of the High-Prieft's daughter, Hero- 
 
 Equidim Jofephus tenetur sV avrsQopa deprehenfus, cum ipfe 
 docuerit, Herodi Magno pofl: rr.ortem Antipatri, nil fiiiorum 
 fuifle, praeter Archelaum, Herodem Antipim, 5c Philippum* 
 quos inter, rcgnum diviferat fuum. Ncc vero fimile eft in 
 teftamento, hujus Herodis, Herodiadi, ut ait Jofephus, ma~ 
 trimonio conjun&i, parentem non mcminifTe, ne expers partis 
 efTet, de bonis ejus j eo magis, quo multa Salomi ibrori fuae 
 praedia moriendo dederat Kerodes. Id faciies Jolepho lar- 
 giemur, ex Simonis Ponti^.cis filia procreatum Herodi regi 
 filium fuiiTe, patcrno nomine donatum. Parenti fuperftitem 
 fuifle, negabimus, ex alto hiftoriae Judaicae filentio, in qu«. 
 
 vir iile partes egifiet fuas. Erravit igitur Jofephus — — 
 
 Btfnage. Ann, Ttolit, Ecclef. A. D. 19. n. iii. 
 
 dias\ 
 
3 zo The Credihility of the Book II. 
 
 dias's husband. Befides there is no mention 
 of this Son in Herod the Great's laft will, 
 which would be very ftrange, if he was 
 then alive, efpecially confldering that Herod 
 left his Sifter Salome a very good eftate in 
 land. 
 
 This is Monfieur Bajhage's Solution: 
 but, in my opinion, a very poor one. I 
 will not be pofuive that Jofephtis has made 
 no miftake in the accounts of Herod's family : 
 becaufe where a man has iftue by feven or 
 eight wives, as Herod had, perhaps a writer 
 had need to have a head peculiarly turned for 
 genealogy to be fecure from ail errors in 
 giving an account ot his children and all 
 their marriages ; efpecially conddering how 
 much the (d) female dependents of Herod 
 
 in- 
 
 (d) Bcfide HeroJias, her three nieces, daughters of her 
 brother Herod Agrippa, would employ the attention of an Hi- 
 ftorian. Bernice,the eldeft, after the death of her firft husband 
 Hero J King of Chalets, married P demon King of Csiicia, [ r 
 as fome read it Lycia], ' But this marriage iaftcd not long, 
 
 * for Bcrniceleft Polemox.' ' Ov fjjvy Ith ttoXu vvvzyjimv b yu^(^ 
 utfsa. Bwixn £i UKoXua-iccv, aq \cpu<rc.v, %a.ra'kw7iii TovHoteyjMcc 
 Antiq, 10. c. 6. §.3. Mariamne [the fecond daughter] « about 
 
 * the fame time, having divorced Arcbdus the Son of HeL 
 « chins, married Demetrius the AUbarch of the Jews at Alex. 
 ' andria.ro) kvrZ j x.ct.i$ ^ M*£M(Ayjv>7?u%ct,iTvi<rc(,yjivr l t 'Ap%iXccov 3 
 <rwa>Kvi<rz 7w AyfAyrgty — totz h *£ ty,v aXaficcfifticcv kvro$ ii%s. 
 ibid. Drufilh, the youngeft, left Aziaus King of the Emefenes 
 and married Felix; as has been fhewn already, V.I. p- 53- 
 
 hav« 
 
Chap.V. Gospel History. 3x1 
 
 incrcafed the task in a fliort time by leaving 
 or divorcing their husbands. But I can never 
 pcrfwade my felf, that Jofephus, a profefled 
 writer of jewijh hiftory, could be guilty of 
 fo many miftakes as are included in a mi- 
 ftake about Herodiass firft husband. If he 
 was not furniflied with the events of all 
 Herod's children, yet he muft certainly know 
 the marriages of the laft princes in the land 
 of Ifrael, his own country. Could he be 
 ignorant who was Vhilip the Tetrarch's wife ? 
 who was the firft husband of Herod the 
 TetrarclVs fecond wife, and of Jgrippa the 
 
 have put down here all thefe instances for the £>ke of a re* 
 mark. Our Saviour fays : Whenever fiall put away his wife, 
 and marry another, committeth adultery againfi her. And if 
 a woman fl>all put away her husband, and be married to 
 another fl)e committeth adultery. Mark x. n, I fa. It maybe 
 inferred from hence, that the jewijjj women, as well as the 
 men, did then pra&ife Divorces, and after that marry to 
 Others, Thefe inftances from Jofephus confirm the inference. 
 We may be allured thefe Lad es were not fingular. Their exam- 
 ples would be followed by others: and, it is likely, were fup- 
 ported by many precedents. It the wom.n took this licence, 
 what wou'd not the men do\ Our Hiilorian Jofephus affords us 
 a double example of this practice. His firft wife left him, 
 vit. §. 75. And he married another. Her he divorced after 
 he had had three children by her, becaufe he was not pleaied 
 with her Manners. And then he married a third, by whom 
 alfo he had children : xced' c» ok tuupc* x^ t»v ywx?x.x, &a 
 
 (AqTtgX. § "6. 
 
 Y Great's 
 
3 xx The Credibility of the Boot II. 
 
 Great's Sifter? Was not Herodias's leaving her 
 firft husband , in all refpe&s a mod no- 
 torious aft ion ? Was not Jofephus well ac- 
 quainted with her nephew, t^Agrippa the 
 younger \ 
 
 M r. Bafnage fays, Jofephus has aflured 
 us Herod had but three fons left after the 
 death of Antipater. I think, Jofephus has 
 never faid any fuch thing. If he had, he 
 would be a writer of no weight , fince 
 he has afterwards exprefly faid that Hero- 
 ridas's firft husband was Herod the fon of 
 the High-Prieft's daughter. And if Jofe- 
 phus had aflured us Herod the Great had 
 but three fons left after Antipater was 
 dead, Nix. Bafnage might have fpared his 
 arguments from the omiffion of Herod the 
 High-Prieft's daughter's fon, and the large 
 eftate left to Salome, in Herod the Great's 
 laft will. 
 
 Indeed, there is no reafon to con- 
 clude that Herod> fon of the High-Prieft's 
 daughter, died before his father: but a great 
 deal of reafon to fuppofe he furvived him, 
 befide the exprefle mention made of him 
 long afterwards as the husband of Herodias. 
 For in the will his father made after the en- 
 quiries into t^Antipatefs confpiracy, and 
 
 there- 
 
Chap.V. Gospel History. 315 
 
 therefore in the laft year of his life, this faid 
 Heroes fucceffion was ftruck out, as Jofe- 
 phus exprefly fays (a). And though there 
 be no mention made in Herod's laft will, 
 of any other fons by name, beiide thofe to 
 whom he left a part of his territories ; yet 
 it is very likely, there were others to whom 
 he left prefents (b). It is not ftrange that 
 Herod fhould leave no towns or Lordfhips 
 to this fon (though living) in his laft will, 
 fince his mother had been lately deteded in 
 a great crime. Nay, it is not ftrange, that 
 Three fons only of Herod had Tetrarchies, 
 and the reft, though never fo many, only 
 funis of money or revenues, As for the 
 Towns bequeathed by Herod to his fifter 
 Salome ; fhe had been always faithful to 
 him, and it was fit fhe fhould have fome 
 extraordinary teftimony of his afFettion. 
 Jofephus himfelf (c) afllgns this as the 
 
 (a) See before, p. 221. (b) Jo[efhu*'s account of 
 
 Herod's laft Will is, that he gave to Herod Amipas, Galilee, &c. 
 to Philip, Gaulor.itisy &c. to Archelaus the Klrgdome, to 
 Szlome his Sifter, Jamnia, &c. and that he took care of all 
 the reft of his family, leaving them handfome legacies of moHy 
 or ample revenues, rpavcjjo-j 'j >£ t XcittZv h'o-ci rvyytn~i 
 
 i)<rotv ctvTWy %pviiA/XT6>v rt £o<rs<ri ^ 77erxr'oh:v uvucpogui's, iKUs*', 
 cv iv7ropU x.<x,Qiru[Atv(&'. Antiq. 17. c. 8 §. X. 
 
 (V) TaXufJtjviv ti i7ri (biycc InXir^tv m» uozX$w % ivvxv ti ci 
 5r2t<rt 7rfo$ ccvtov hxjAiiJUiirtKvTctv x. r. A. Antiq. 17. C w\l 
 
 §... 
 
 Y 2 reafon 
 
314 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 reafon of that regard fnewed to her in He* 
 rod's wills. 
 
 And Thilo fays, that when Tilate de- 
 dicated fliields and placed them in Herod's 
 palace at Jerufalem {a), the Jews got 
 four {b) of the Kings fons, and other his 
 defcendents to make ufe of their intereft 
 with Tilate to remove the fhields. If Philo 
 may be relied upon in this matter, and if 
 we may underftand the word Sons in the 
 moft proper fenfe, (which it fcems mod 
 reafonabie to do) and not for Grandchildren 
 or other defcendents 5 then Herod muft 
 have left behind him at left two Sons, be- 
 fide thofe three betwixt whom he divided 
 his dominions : For Archelaus certainly was 
 not one of the four fons whom Thilo fpeaks 
 of, becaufe he had been baniflied into Gaul 
 long before Tilate's government. Suppofing 
 then that Herod Tetrarch of Galilee and 
 Thilip Tetrarch of Trachonitis were two 
 of the four, there muft have been two o- 
 ther Sons of Herod, befide them and Ar- 
 chelaus. 
 
 (a) *AvuTi@ii(rtt &> to~$ koctoc t»v UgoyroXtv 'HguM ficuriXtion? 
 Thilo de legat. in Cxi. p. 1034. A, (&) Rgtrw-etftSHn 
 
 t»5 t« /3#(r*Anv{ w«5 TiTTccexs — — >£ rut cc)kv$ "tenyoyxs' id. 
 ibid. 
 
 Bu T 
 
Chap.V. Gospel History, 327 
 
 But however Thilo ought to be under- 
 flood, I can never think it a fair way of 
 getting lid of this difficulty to charge Jofe* 
 phas with a great many gtofs blunders. 
 
 2. I proceed therefore to lay before 
 the reader another Solution which has been in 
 the main approved of already by many learn* 
 ed men. 
 
 (1.) The Evangelifts and Joftphus are 
 in the right, and none of them have com- 
 mitted any miftake in this matter. I have 
 juft fhewn, that there is no rcafon to think 
 Jofephus was miftaken. And it is as un- 
 realonablc to fuppofc, that the Evangelifts 
 arc miftaken. They all agree in calling 
 Herodias's firft husband Philip. And they 
 appear to be fully matter of the hiftory of 
 Herod the Great's family. One or other of 
 them have told us, that Anhelaus fuccecd- 
 cd his father in Judea> that Herod (who 
 was alio called ^Antipas) wasTetrarch of 
 Galilee, T hi lip of Trachonitis. If they 
 had not been well informed, fome errors 
 would have appeared here. St. Luke has 
 given the proper titles and characters to all 
 the other dependents of Herod whom he 
 hath mentioned afterward, Herod the King, 
 Agrifpa, Bernice, Drujilla. 
 
 Y 3 They 
 
3 z6 The Credibility of the BooklL 
 
 They fpeak of this unlawful marriage 
 of Herodias, as a matter they were well 
 acquainted with 5 and yofephus concurs with 
 them in the main. 
 
 (2.) The Evangelifts do not intend 
 'Philip the Tetrarch, but the fame perfon 
 that Jofephus does. If they had intended 
 'Philip the Tetrarch, when they fpeak of 
 Herodias's husband, they would have given 
 him his title. This is their conftant method. 
 St. Matthew lays, that Jefuswas bominthe 
 Matth. ii days of Herod the king. St. Luke, that 
 Lukei. 5 .the vifionof Zacharias was in the dap of 
 Herod the king of judea* In the account 
 of our Saviour's return from Egypt St. Mat- 
 thew fays, that jofeph heard that Arche- 
 laas did reign, in Judea, in the room of 
 Mztth. u. his father Herod. St. Luke gives the pro- 
 Z2 " per titles to all the princes whom he men- 
 tions at the beginning of John the Baptift's 
 Lukeui l.miniftry. In the account of Pilate'sknd* 
 ing our Saviour to Herod it appears plainly, 
 Luke xxiii.that he was the Tetrarch of Galilee^ to 
 6, " s ' whom he was fent. When St. Luke begins 
 the hiftory of Herod Agrippa, he calls him 
 jrf xxv ! ' f fo e king- He gives alfo the title of King 
 J 3. to Jgrippa, 
 
 Indeed 
 
Chap.V. Gospel History. 327 
 
 Indeed the church at Jerufalem in 
 their prayer to God give Herod and Ton- 
 tins Tilate no titles. And I believe none^a.iir.17; 
 would have them there at length. In 
 the account of the death of John the Bap- 
 tifl^ and this marriage, all the Evangelifts 
 do ever give Herod his title : But not one of Matthew. 
 them have given the Thilip whom they men- j^ vi . 
 tion any title, but that Herod had laid l*- ... 
 
 7 7 j n j r - ^ Luke ill. 
 
 hold of John, and fut him tn prifon for 19. xi. 7 . 
 Herodias fake, his brother Philip's wife™?*'™- 
 or bound him in prifon for Herodias fake **** rk *»« 
 his brother Philips wife. Again: H rod Luke m. 
 the Tetrarch being reproved by him for l - 
 Herodias his brother Philip's wife. I make 
 no doubt therefore but that Thilip^Hcrodias's 
 firft husband, was a private perfon who lived 
 in all probability at yerufalem, and that 
 Herod the Tetrarch in his way to Rome 
 there fell in love with her and made the 
 control, Thilip then, whom the Evangelifts 
 fpeak of, as the firft husband of Herodias, 
 was a private perfon , inverted with no 
 titles or dignities : and fo is jofephtis's He m 
 rod , as appears from the hiftory I have 
 given of him : And it is not unlikely, 
 that this was one reafon, among others, 
 why Herod the Tetrarch's propofal of mar- 
 Y 4 xiagc; 
 
gi8 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 riage was fo foon accepted by Hcrodias, an 
 ambitious woman. 
 
 The only difficulty therefore concerning 
 this matter aiifes from the name, jofephus 
 calls this perfon Herod, theEvangeliftsf^i- 
 lip : Moreover Thilip was the name of the 
 Tetrarch of It urea and Trachonitis, there- 
 fore it may be thought ftrange, that Herod 
 the Great fliould have another fon called 
 Thilip. 
 
 This difficulty will be cleared by the 
 following confideratidns. It is not at all 
 ftrange that Herod the Great fliould have 
 two ions called by the fame name, when 
 he had children by feven or eight wives. 
 Even according to Jofephus, the eldeft fon 
 was called Antipater, and another, who 
 was the youngeft, Antipas or Herod Anti- 
 pas y the Tetrarch of Galilee. Thefe are 
 but one and the fame name, only a different 
 termination. Jofephus mentions ri^pe of 
 of Herod's fons of the name Herod, with^ 
 out any other addition (tf). But yet 
 it is highly probable, they had fome other 
 jiames by which they were diftinguifhed, 
 
 (») Vid. Jofepb. Antiq.h. 17. -C. i. L. 1 8, C. vi. §. 4. De 
 Bel!. L. i. C. xxviii. & Genealog, Herod, in Reland. Valeft. 
 
 though 
 
Chap.V. Gospel History. 319 
 
 though Jofephus has not mentioned them. 
 Grotius (a) thinks it very probable, there 
 was a Philip among the anceftors of Herod 
 the Great, after whom two of his ions were 
 named Philip : as there were two of them, 
 who bore the name of Antipater or Anti- 
 pas from his father. 
 
 Though there was another brother by 
 the fame father, namely Philip thcTetrarch* 
 called by the fame name with Herodiass 
 husband ; yet ic was not necelTary for the 
 Evangelifts to take notice of it. When 
 writers relate a well known fad, near the 
 time in which it happened, whilft there is no 
 danger of perfons making a miftake, this 
 precaution is often ncglc&cd. 'Dio's ac- 
 count of Kyirchelauss removal is thus : 
 € Herod of Pale/line being accufcd by his 
 ' brothers was banifhed to the other (b) 
 1 fide the Alps'. Herod was the name by 
 which the Tetrarch of Galilee was ufually 
 called. And he alfo was afterwards banifh- 
 ed to the other fide the Alps. Yet I believe 
 no one ever charged T)io with a miftake 
 here as to the perfon he (peaks of, or fuf- 
 
 (a) In Matth. xix. 3. 
 
 {b) "O, ts 'tipao-te Tlu.Aottrt)vos, cciTixv Tito, *?n t a.?t}.<$ta* 
 JKccfiliv, uaro y«|S ''Amarus ijxssfwfi'a-Sii. lib. 55. p. 567. B. 
 
 peeled 
 
3 j o The Credibility of the Book II 
 
 oe&edthat he thought the Tetrarch of Ga' 
 lilee y was banifhedfrom his dominions A.U. 
 759. I willtranfcribe here an obfervation of 
 the learned and judicious Dr. (a) Trideaux. 
 1 He \JPtolomy Lathyrus'] was fucceeded 
 € by Cleopatra his daughter, and only le- 
 ' gitimate child. Her proper name was 
 1 Berenice, and fo Taufanias calls her. For 
 c it is to be noted that as all the males of this 
 
 < family had the common name of Ptolomj, 
 e fo all the females of it had that of Cleo- 
 1 patra, and befides had other proper names 
 1 to diftinguifti them from each other. 
 
 * Thus Selene was called Cleopatra, and fo 
 ' were alio two other of her Sifters. And 
 c in like manner this daughter of Lathyrus, 
 
 * whofe proper name was Berenice borealfo 
 
 < that of Cleopatra, according to the ufage 
 ' of her family. The obfervingof this will 
 c remove many obfcurities and difficulties 
 € in the Egyptian Hiftory*. 
 
 The Evangelifts do all agree in calling 
 Herodias's firft husband Thilip: and they 
 appear fully mafters of their ftory. It is 
 therefore highly reafonable to fuppofe he 
 was called Philip as well as Herod. I ftiall 
 put a cafe refembling this. Jofephus al- 
 
 (/*) Conn. Part. ii. year before Chrift 8i". p. 39<>- 
 
 ways 
 
Chap.V. GospelHistory. 331 
 
 ways calls Livia , Auguftus's wife, (a) 
 Julia, though that was the proper name of 
 Auguftus's daughter, without ever giving 
 the left hint of his reafon for it. It is 
 true, that though the Roman hiftorians do 
 generally call her Lwia 5 yet they have told 
 us, that fhe had alfo the name of Julia, 
 and have informed us of the reafon of it; 
 which was, that Auguftus in his laft will 
 adopted his wife into the Julian family? 
 and appointed that fhe fhould bear the 
 name of Julia (b). And there are medals, 
 on which fhe bears this name. But if no- 
 thing of this had appeared in any of the 
 Roman authors, or inferiptions that are ex- 
 tant 3 yet fince Jofefhus appears to be 
 well acquainted with the Roman affairs 
 from Julius Cejar down to his own time, 
 I believe, moft men would have allowed that 
 he had fome good reafon for calling the wife 
 of Auguftus Julia. And for the fame rea- 
 fon a like fuppofition ought to be made in 
 behalf of the Evangelifts in the cafe before 
 us. 
 
 (a) Vid. Jofeph. p. 1 oi 8. not. h. 
 
 (b) Tiberium & Liviam heredes habuit. Livia in familiam. 
 Jnliam nomenq; Auguftae adfumebatur. Tacit. Ann. Lib. i. 
 c 8. vid. & Stieton- Ang. cap. ior. Dion. p. Coo. A. 
 
 It 
 
Matt. x. 
 a, 3- 
 
 3 5 x The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 I x was exceeding common among the 
 
 ancients, Jews and others, for perfons to 
 
 have two names, and to be called fometimes 
 
 by the one, and fometimes by the other. 
 
 There are feveral inftances in the New 
 
 Tefiament. Simon, who is called *Peter 5 
 
 Lebbeus, whofe fur name was Thaddeus : 
 
 John™. Thomas, which is called T)ydimus : Simeon, 
 
 mi xiii 1 t ^ oat was ca ^ c ^ Niget 5 Saul who was alfo 
 
 " ' 'called Taid. 
 
 JO SET HUS calls Caiaphas, the High- 
 Prieft, Jofeph. He has indeed told us that 
 he was alio called Caiaphas (#). If man- 
 kind would have been as equitable to the 
 writers of the New Tejlament, as they ufual- 
 ly are to other authors, to fome who are far 
 from giving equal tokens of skill or probity 
 with them, this would have created no dif- 
 ficulty, though Jofephus had never fubjoined 
 the name of Caiaphas to that of Jofeph, 
 But if any had been difpofed to give the 
 Evangelifts unfair and unequal treatment, it 
 is likely, they would have pretended that 
 here was a notorious blunder \ and that 
 Caiaphas was fo far from being High-Pried 
 when John Baptifl began his miniftry, and 
 when Jefus was crucified, that there never 
 
 , {a) ?,79U v- z 3- 802. v. aS. 
 
 was 
 
Chap.V, Gospel History. 333 
 
 was any fuch perfon High-Prieft among the 
 Jews. 
 
 I hope what is already (aid may befuf- 
 ficient to convince all reafonable men, there 
 is no juft ground to fufpecT: the Evangelifts 
 of any miftake in the name of Herod/as's 
 firft husband. However, there is fomewhat 
 farther to be offered. There are other wri- 
 tings extant in which he is called 'Philip. 
 I (hall tranfcribe here the account of it in 
 Dr. IVhitbfs words. c Gorionides faith, 
 1 Herodias was firft married to Philip, and 
 c then taken away from him by Herod An- 
 c tipas. The old Hebrew chronicle faith, 
 * Uxor em fratris fui Philippi ipfo vivente 
 1 junxit fibi matrimonio, quae libcros ex 
 c jratre ejus fufceperat, & tamen is earn 
 < duxit uxorem^ fchap. 36). And an old 
 c Chronicle of the fecond Temple, faith, 
 1 Antipas Philippi fratris fui uxorem ac- 
 € cepit, ex qua Me liberos ante genuerat 
 c (F. 54. c. 4.) /. e. Antipas married the 
 c wife of his brother Philip, he being yet 
 [ living, and having had children by her {a). 
 
 (a) Whitby on Mutth. xiv. 3. 
 
 Chap. 
 
3g4 The Credibility of the Book II 
 
 
 Chap. VI. 
 
 Of Zach arias the Son of 
 Barachias. 
 
 HERE are fome difficulties at- 
 tending the prophetical repre- 
 fentation, given by our Lord, of 
 thofe judgments which he fore- 
 faw, would foon befall the jewijh nation. 
 This we have in two of the Evangelifts, in 
 St. Matthew, and St Luke. One account 
 will illuftrate the other, and we may have 
 fome occafion to refer to each of them : and 
 therefore I (hall fet them both down here 
 at once. 
 
 The account of this matter, as it Hands 
 in St. Matthew, is thus : Woe unto you 
 Scribes and Tharifees, hypocrites, becaufe 
 ye build the tombs of the Prophets, and 
 garni jh the fepulchres of the righteous $ and 
 fay, if we had been in the days of our fathers, 
 we would not have been partakers with 
 them in the blood of the Prophets. Where* 
 
 fore 
 
Chap. VI. Gospfl History. 337 
 
 fore ye be witneffes unto your felves, that 
 
 ye are the children of them that killed the 
 
 'Prophets. Fill ye up then the rneafure of 
 
 your fathers. Te Serpents, ye generation 
 
 of vipers, how can ye efcape the damnation 
 
 of hell? Wherefore, behold, I fend unto 
 
 you Prophets, and wife men and Scribes, 
 
 and fome of them ye fhall kill and crucife, 
 
 and fome of them Jhall ye fcourge in 
 
 your Synagogues, and perfecute them from 
 
 city to city : that upon you may come all 
 
 the righteous blood [bed upon the earthy 
 
 from the blood of righteous Abel, unto the 
 
 blood of Zach arias, son of Barachias, 
 
 whom ye few between the temple and the 
 
 altar. Verily, I fay unto you, all thefe 
 
 things Jhall come tipon this generation *. 
 
 The parallel place in St. Luke is in thefe xxiii. 
 words: Wo unto you, for you build the v ' 6 19 '~~ 
 fepulchres of the Prophets, and your fathers 
 killed them. Truly ye bear witnefs that ye 
 allow the deeds of your fathers, for they 
 indeed killed them, and ye build their 
 fepulchres. Therefore alfo faid the wifdom 
 of God, I will fnd them Prophets and 
 K^Apoftles, and fome of them they fh all flay 
 and perfecute -, that the iiood of all the 
 'Prophets, which was find from the foun- 
 dation 
 
3 3 6 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 dation of the world, may be required of 
 this generation $ from the blood of ^Abel, 
 unto the blood of Zacharias, which pe- 
 rijhed between the altar and the temple : 
 verily, I fay unto you, it jhall be required 
 n^L-^'of this generation*. 
 
 Here the Evangelifts may be charged 
 with a miftakc feveral ways. They who 
 would fuppofe, that the Zacharias here 
 referred to, is Zacharias, one of the twelve 
 lefler jewijh prophets, will fay, they muft 
 have been miftaken, becaufe in the time of 
 this Zacharias, the temple is fuppofed to 
 have been in ruins : and therefore it is im- 
 poflible, he fhould have been killed be- 
 tween the temple and the altar. And others, 
 who fuppofe the Zacharias here intended, is 
 the Zacharias, whofe death is related in 
 2 Chron. xxiv, may fay, that St. Mattheuu 
 miftook the name of his father. For his 
 name was Jehojada, and not Barachias. 
 
 There is another Zacharias, whofe 
 death is related by Jofephus. But that hap- 
 pened not till long after the time, in which 
 our Saviour is fuppofed to have fpoken thefe 
 words. This feems to afford the moft for- 
 midable objection. 1 fhall therefore ftate 
 
 and 
 
Chap. VI. Gospfl History. 337 
 
 and conflder it particularly. And in an- 
 fwering this I hope toanfwer alfo the other 
 two. 
 
 Before I flatc this obje&ion, I (hall 
 here tranfcribe the palTage of Jofephus, on 
 which it is founded. I mud abridge ic in- 
 deed, but I fhall omit nothing that's ma- 
 terial to the point before us. 
 
 ' The zealots, fays Jofepbus, were ex- 
 
 * ceedingly enraged againft Zacharias Qa\ 
 c the fonof Baruch : for he was a man who 
 i detefted all wickednefle, was a lover of 
 
 * liberty, and moreover was very rich. They 
 « call (Jf) together therefore by a decree feven- 
 1 ty of the chief of the people, and form 
 c a kind of Council dcilitute of all autho- 
 
 * rity. They then brought Zacharias be- 
 1 fore them, andaccufed him of a confpiracy 
 c with the Romans: and in particular charged 
 
 * him with fending meflengers to Vefpajian, 
 € the better to concert mealures for bctray- 
 1 ing them into his hands'. But they had no 
 witnefles. The fads were not proved. 
 Zacharias in a fpecch he delivered before the 
 Council confuted all the calumnies of the 
 
 Z zealots, 
 
3 3 8 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 zealots, and warmly reproved them for their 
 wickcdnefTc c The feventy then acquitted 
 1 him, choofing rather to die with him, than 
 € to bring upon themfelves the imputation 
 c of his death. He being thus abfolved, the 
 4 zealots raifed a loud clamour againft thefe 
 ' Judges, as not underftanding the defign for 
 c which they had been invefted with autho- 
 £ rity. And two of the moft daring of the 
 4 zealots,fallinguponZ^^mmnthe middle 
 * of the Temple, flew him there (a). 
 
 I x may be laid then : Prom hence it ap- 
 pears, that the writers of thefe books were 
 not acquainted with the affairs of thofe 
 times. Thefe writings therefore don't come 
 from St. Matthew or St. Luke. At left the 
 authors of them did not live at the time 
 they arc hippofed to have lived : poflibly 
 not till long afterwards. How elf'e could 
 they have committed fuch a blunder, as to 
 make Jefus tell the Jews of his time, in 
 the reign of Tiberius^ that they had killed 
 Zach arias the fon of Barachias, or Baruch 5 
 when Jofephus informs us, that lie was not 
 killed till the latter end of Nero's reign^ 
 
 haQQufWri rev Zu^etfUv. DeBell. 1. 4. c. 5. § 4. 
 
 above 
 
Chap. VI Gospel History. 339 
 
 above thirty years after thefe words arc faid 
 to have been fpoken by Chrift ? 
 
 I. T o this I anfwer 5 in the firfl place, 
 that the fad related by Jofephus dees not 
 fuit the words of Chrift in the Evangelifts. 
 
 For (i.) the name of the father of Za- 
 charias feems to be different. Dr. Whitby 
 {a) obferves c that as Baruch in Jeremiah, 
 € and the Apocrypha is always called by 
 ' the Septuagint Bxp^ (Baruch J fo JTD13 
 
 * (Barachiah) is rendered by them Bxpv%fa$ 
 ' {Barachiah) Ifa. viii. 2. Zach. i. t. 7. 
 
 * And in Neh. iii. we find Bx^a^/a; (Ba- 
 
 * rachias) ^.4. and Bap*^ (Baruch) v.io. 
 c which fhows they w T ere not the fame 
 « name'. 
 
 (2.J Their characlcrs are not the 
 fame. The defign of our Saviour's difcourfe 
 obliges us to fuppofe, that the Zacharias he 
 mentioned was a prophet: Whereas the 
 Zacharias in Joftphus has not that cha- 
 ncier from him. 
 
 (3.) The place, in which they are faid 
 to have been flain, is not the fame. The 
 Zacharias in the gofpels perifhed between 
 the temple and the altar, according to both 
 Sr, Matthew and St. Luke. But there is 
 
 (a) Oa Mattb.xiiiu 3 j*. 
 
 Z i no 
 
34° The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 no reaion to lap pofe, that Jojlfhus's Za- 
 charias was (lain in the inner court, in 
 which the altar flood. The council was not 
 held within that Court : and Zacharias 
 feems to have been (lain immediately after 
 his absolution by the council. If he was 
 flain in any part of the Q^qi) temple, that 
 is perfectly agreeable to the words of Jo- 
 fephus 5 for under that name were com- 
 prehended the temple and all the courts 
 and buildings belonging to it. 
 
 These feveral inftanccs of difagree- 
 lnent, I fliould think, muft incline mod 
 perfons to conclude,that the fame Zacharias 
 was not intended by the Evangelifts and 
 Jojlphus. 
 
 But perhaps this is more than is reafon- 
 able to expeel: fhould be allowed by an Ob- 
 jector. He can eafily believe of writers who 
 are in little credit with him, that they may 
 run far wide of the truth ; and really in- 
 tend a fad that has but a fin all refemblance 
 with their relation. With fuch what hath 
 been laid hitherto will have little weight. 
 
 I proceed therefore to fome othet 
 conftderations. 
 
 II. I say then, that our Lord in the 
 words we are now considering, inftanceth 
 
 in 
 
Chap. VI. Gospel History. 34 1 
 
 in fads fuppofed to have been done a con- 
 fiderable time before. The whole tcnour and 
 defign of his difcourfe allure us of it. 
 
 The Zackarias he mentions is not one 
 whom they of that age had themfclvcs (lain, 
 but rather one of thole prophets whole 
 tombs they built. 
 
 The Turn of what our Saviour fays (if 
 I miftake not) is this: Ye fay, If we had 
 been in the days of our fathers, we would 
 not have been partakers with them in the 
 blood of the prophets. This you fay 5 but, 
 as hereby you own, that you are the chil- 
 dren of them that killed the prophets ; lb by 
 your conduft, by your malice, your pride, 
 your hypocrify, your obftinate di [obedience 
 to God, you make it appear that you allow 
 the deeds of your fathers, and are their ge- 
 nuine off- fpring. You even exceed them in 
 wickedneffe. You are now filling up, and 
 you will ftill go on to fill up the meafurc 
 of their iniquity. I am come among you 
 in my fathers name, and have done works 
 which no man ever did ; but you do not 
 hearken to me. My words you do not re- 
 ceive, and me you will crucifie. God will 
 ftill fend among you, as he did to your fa- 
 thers, prophets and wifemen, to inftruit you 
 
 Z 3 in 
 
34* The Credibility of the Book 1L 
 
 in the mod excellent do&rine, to admonifh 
 and reclaim you: but ye will kill andcmcifie 
 them, fcourge them in your Synagogues, 
 and perfccute them from City to City. 
 Hereby you will make the wicked deeds of 
 your fathers your own, and bring the guilt 
 of 'em upon your felves :, You will hereby 
 deferve, that all the righteous blood, fhed 
 from the foundation of the world, from the 
 blood of righteous Abel to the blood of 
 Zacharias > fhould be required of you : and 
 verily 1 fay unto you, it Jhall be required of 
 this generation. 
 
 Our Lord fee ms to me to remind them 
 of inftanccs of difobedience and cruelty, 
 which they were well acquainted with? 
 which they avowedly condemned, and pre- 
 tended to fee the evil of 5 but yet did, and 
 would imitate in a moft notorious manner 1 
 and hereby would bring the guilt of them 
 upon themfelves. And the conclufion of all 
 J obliges us to fuppofe, that the death of the 
 Zacharias he had mentioned, was an adlof 
 cruelty committed by their fathers. This is 
 the fenfe cf the words in both the Evangc- 
 Ms, 
 
 This appears to me fo evident, that if 
 ?here had been do event recorded in any of 
 
Chap.VL Gospel History. 343 
 
 their ancient writings which anfwered to the 
 death of Zacbarias here defcribed ; yet I 
 fhould have fuppofed that there was fomc 
 fuch event, that had happened Ionic time 
 before, and which they were then well ac- 
 quainted with. 
 
 Ilf. However, we have [a) a facT: 
 recorded in the Old Teftament which ex, 
 aclly answers the words of our Saviour. It 
 is in zChron. xxiv. 17.— 22. Now after 
 the death of Jehojada- -they left the hcufe 
 
 of the Lord God of their fathers and 
 
 wrath come upon Judah and Jerufalem — 
 yet he fent prophets unto them to bring 
 them again unto the Lord, and they teftifii d 
 again/I them : but they would not give 
 ear. And the fpirit of God came upon 
 Zachariahy the Jon of Jehojada the priejl, 
 which flood above the people, and faid un- 
 to them y Thus faith God, Why tranfgrejfe 
 ye the commandment of tloe Lord ? And 
 they confpired againft him* and Jloned 
 him with ft ones at the commandment of 
 the king in the court of the houfe of the 
 Lord. Thus Joajh the king remembered 
 not the kindnefs which Jehoj -da his fa- 
 ther had done to him, but flew his Jon : 
 
 (a) Vid. Whitby > MMtt.XXhi. 36. 
 
 Z 4 and 
 
344 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 and when he died, he [aid, the Lord look 
 ttpon it and require it. 
 
 This fa& is exaftly parallel with that 
 defcribed by your Lord. ( i .) This Zachariah 
 fpoke in the name of the Lord (the fpirit of 
 God came upon hint). It wasfuitable to our 
 Lord's defign to inftance in the death of a 
 pr ophet. Te fay, if we had been in the 
 days of our fathers, we would not have 
 been partakers with them in the death of 
 the prophfts ---- 1 Jend unto you prophets, 
 and Wifemen and fcribes. Abel was a righ- 
 teous man, and this Zacharias a prophet. 
 
 (2.) The place, in which this Zacharias 
 is laid to have been killed, anfwers the de- 
 fcription in the Eyangelifts. He wasilain in 
 the court of the houfe of the Lord, that is, 
 in the court of the priefts, the inner court 
 of the temple. In both the Evangelifts the 
 fame place is fpecified, between the temple 
 and the altar. This particular circumftayce 
 of io remarkable an event was, doubtlefs, 
 handed down to them by tradition. Ac- 
 cording to the account in the Chronicles y 
 he was in the inner court when he delivered 
 his nicflagc from God to them : He flood 
 abovt ike people. The ground of the inner 
 
 court was railed above the reft. He flood at 
 
 the 
 
Chap.VL Gospel History. 345- 
 the extremity of that, and (poke to the peo- 
 ple (landing in the next gourt below him. 
 \ylt the commandment of the King, thev 
 ruflied in upon Zachariah. He retired, 
 they purfued him and ft one d him with 
 ftones, To that he fell down in the fpace 
 between the altar of burnt-offerings and the 
 temple. 
 
 (3.) Our Lord (ubjoins : whom ye 
 slew. The death of Zacharias in the 
 Chronicles was the ad of the nation, of 
 King and People. This particular is added 
 to this inftance with the higheft propriety. 
 The death of Abel was the death of a righ- 
 teous man, but not committed by them. 
 The death of Zacharias was the a&of their 
 ancestors, that is, of that people to whom 
 our Lord was fpeaking. For a nation is in 
 all ages reckoned the fame people, And he 
 anfwered and f aid unto them, what did 
 Mofes command you? Verily I fay unto^ a !' hx ' ?: 
 you, Mofes gave you not that bread from--™ 19. 
 heaven. ^D id not Mofes ghe you the fc 
 law \ 
 
 (*4.) Expressions made ufe of in 
 the hiftoiy of Zacharias in the Chronicles, 
 and by our Saviour in his difcourfe to the 
 Jews put it paft doubt that he intended this 
 
 fad, 
 
3 46 The Credibility of the Book IL 
 
 fad, and alluded to this very account in that 
 book. Behold I fend unto you prophets 
 and wife men and fenbes. The hiftory in 
 the Chronicles begins thus : Jet be ft nt un- 
 to them prophets to bring them again unto 
 the Lord, and they teftijied again ft them ,&c. 
 It concludes thus: And when he dud y he 
 faidy the Lord look upon it and require it- 
 Our Saviour tells the Jews, that the blood 
 of all the prophets would be required of that 
 generation. 
 
 (5.) As the fad related in the Chronicles 
 does in all its circumftances anfwer that de- 
 fcribed by our Lord s lb there is a fuitable- 
 neife in the order in which it (lands in our 
 Lord's difcourfe. Abel is the firft righteous 
 man (lain, and the death of this Zacharias 
 is the laft ad of cruelty to a prophet related 
 in the Jewijh facred writings, 
 
 IV. It ought to beobferved, that there 
 is an exad harmony between theEvangelifts, 
 in the account they have given of this dif- 
 courfe of our Saviour, though there is no 
 reafon to think that one has copied the other. 
 This ought to fatisfy us that no miftake has 
 been made. 
 
 In one particular indeed there is a diffe- 
 rence. Im St. Matthew Zacharias is ftiled 
 
 the 
 
Chap. VI. Gospel History. 34,3 
 the ion of Barachias, whereas in St. Lukes 
 account it is not faid who was his father. 
 
 A n d in this particular the perfon whom 
 our Saviour fpeaks of feems not to anfwerto 
 him mentioned in the Chronicles* For there 
 he is called the fon of Jehojada. 
 
 There is therefore but one obje&ion 
 againft fuppofing, that our Saviour meant 
 the Zacharias in the Chronicles. But it is 
 fuch an objedion asdeferves confederation. 
 
 I t has been cbferved by (a) divers 
 learned men, that many peribns among the 
 Jews were called by two names, efpecially 
 when their true name happened to have fomc 
 of the letters of the word Jehovah in it. 
 For this reafon Barachias may have been 
 ufed for Jehojada, fince likewife thefc two 
 names have much the fame meaning. 
 
 Other learned men iuppofe, that 
 Barachias was very early inferted into Saint 
 Matthew's Gofpel by fome tranferiber. 
 There is the more reafon for this fuppofition, 
 becaufe it is wanting in St. Luke : Or elfe 
 Jehojada might have been originally in 
 St. Matthew, but fome Chriftian tranferiber 
 not well acquainted with the Jewijh hiftory 
 nor knowing who Jehojada was, and there- 
 
 (a) Vid. Cm. & Wbltb. in ice, 
 
n 
 
 48 The Credibility of the Booldl. 
 
 fore fufpeding that to be a miftake, might 
 pretend to corred it by putting Barachias in 
 the room of J.-kojada. Za.hariah the (on 
 of Barachias , whofe prophecies form one 
 of the books of the Old Tejiament, was 
 certainly better known among the Chriftians 
 than Zacharias the ion of Jehojada. It is 
 not at all unlikely therefore, that our not 
 having this name in St. Matthew may be 
 owine; to the ignorance and rafhneffe of fome 
 tranicriber. This fuppofition feems to be 
 favoured by what Sr. Jerome fays, who in- 
 forms us, that in the Gofpelof the Nazarenes 
 Zachariah is called /&* Son of [a) jehojada. 
 Some have thought, that there is alike 
 inftance in Matth. xiii. 3$, where we have 
 thefe words : That it might be fulfilled 
 which was fpoken by the prophet faying, 1 
 will open my mouth in parables, &c. The 
 the words of this quotation are in P/^78.2. 
 the title of which is Mafchil of Afaph. Saint 
 Jerome (b) fays that in (ome copies of 
 St. Matthew it was written : That it might 
 be fulfilled which was fpoken by the prophet 
 Efaias. He thinks it was originally : which 
 
 (a) In evangello quo utuntur Nazareni, pro filio Barachfa?, 
 filium Jojadae reperimus fcriptum . S, Hieron, comment. Mattb t 
 2 xiii. 36, [6) In loc. 
 
 was 
 
Chap. VI. Gospel History. 3 49 
 
 was fpoken by the prophet Afaph. But fome 
 tranicriber, not knowing Afaph to be a pro- 
 phet, put Efaias in his room. Afterward, 
 others, perceiving there were no fuch words 
 as thole which follow here to be found in 
 Efaias, left out his name. And from thence 
 forward in mod copies it was written : 
 which was fpoken by the prophet \ faying, &c. 
 I crave leave to mention an obferva- 
 tion, that may iupport the former of thefe 
 two fuppofuions, vi£i that originally the 
 fon of Barachias was wanting in St. Mat- 
 theWy as well as in St. Luke. The ancient 
 Chriftians feem to have been very much di- 
 vided in their opinion who the Zacharias 
 here fpoken of was. Many Chriftians in 
 St. Jerome's time thought he was Zacharias 
 the father of John the Baptift, borrowing 
 this notion (as he (a) adds) from fome 
 Aprocyphal books of no authority. In the 
 copies of St. Matthew's Gofpel in his time, 
 he was ftiled the ion of Barachias, as in 
 ours : But the Nazarene Chriftians, being 
 Jews by birth, and undemanding the hiftory 
 of their own nation, had it in their Gofpel, 
 Zacharias the Jon of Jehojada. This in- 
 
 (4) Com. in M*tb. xxiii. $6. 
 
 deed 
 
3 ?o The Credibility of the Boot 11 
 
 indeed was the truth, but it feems to have 
 been an infertion. 
 
 But this is left to the reader to judge of 
 as he thinks fit. It is highly probable, that 
 one of thefe may be the cafe,* either that 
 Johojada not being well known, Barachias 
 was put in his room : or elfe, that the Son of 
 Barachias, was added. 
 
 There being fo probable an account of 
 this reading, I hope there remains no farther 
 fcruple about this text. 
 
 There is another interpretation of thefe 
 words which fome have inclined to, name- 
 ly, that the Zacharias here mentioned is 
 the Zacharias whofe death Jofephns has 
 given us the hiftory of : and that our Saviour 
 fpoke of him by way of prophecy. But as 
 there can be no objection which I am concern- 
 ed with formed againft the Evangclifts from 
 this fenfe of the words, I have taken no 
 notice of it. 
 
 Besides, I think it is by no means 
 the true fenfe of the place. Dr. Whitby 
 obferves very well, that c Chrift fpeaks 
 c here of the Prophets whom they had flain, 
 € not of one who was to be flain a little be- 
 * fore the deftru&ion of Jerufalem 5 for 
 
 € then 
 
Chap. VI. Gospel History. 
 
 ' then none of the people could have im- 
 c derftood his meaning*. 
 
 By the whole tenour of our Saviour's 
 difcourfe, the Zacharias he fpeaks of is 
 excluded from the number of thofe that 
 were to be {lain. If the Zacharias whom 
 jofephus fpeaks of was as good a man as he 
 reprefents him, and did faithfully reprove the 
 wickednelTe of the prevailing party of his 
 nation, he might be one of thofe holy and 
 Wife rnen> whom our Saviour forefaw would 
 be (lain by the Jews. But he can never be 
 the Zacharias whom our Saviour mentioned 
 by name, for he is one of thofe prophets 
 which had been flain before, and whofe 
 blood would be required of them. 
 
 Tl 
 
 Ceu?, 
 
%fz The Credibility of the Book II, 
 
 Chap. VII. 
 Of Theudas. 
 
 &p^jS j w ju be proper in the next place to 
 *$ m confider the objeftion relating to 
 \&<£§m xheudas. The Apoftles were 
 brought before the council at Jt. rufalem : 
 And when they took counfel to flay them, 
 Gamaliel commanded to put the ^Apoftles 
 forth a little fpace, and f aid unto them> 
 Te men of Ifrael take heed to your felves, 
 what ye intend to do as touching thefe 
 
 mm. FOR BEFORE THESE DAYS ROSE UP 
 
 Theudas, boafling himfelf to te fome body, 
 to whom a number of men, about four hun- 
 dred, joined themftlves : who was fain f, 
 and all as many as obeyed him, w re feat - 
 tered and brought to nought After this 
 man rofe up Judas of Galilee ', in the days 
 of the taxing, and drew away much people 
 after him : and all> even as many as obeyed 
 
 'AB.v. 34. J . s J 
 
 ^-36. him, were difperjea. 
 
 This 
 
Chap. VII. Gospel History. 3^3 
 
 This fpeech of Gamaliel was made not 
 long after our Saviour's afcenfion. Lado- 
 vicus Cappellus places it in the beginning of 
 {a) Caligula s reign. Dr. Whitby (b) and 
 others three or four years fooner, in the 20th 
 of Tiberius A. D. 34. And Gamaliel here 
 fpeaks of Thendas as having given diftur- 
 bance before judas of Galilee, who in the 
 days of the taxing drew away much people. 
 This refers doubtlefs to the affefTementmade 
 by Cyrenius after Archelaus was depofed, 
 when Judea was reduced to a Roman (c") 
 Province: which happened in the fixth or 
 feventh year of the Chriftian Aera. It was 
 at this time that yudas, whom Jofephus calls 
 Judas Gaulanites, and likewife Judas 
 the Galilean^ rais'd difturbances in that coun- 
 try. 
 
 But Jofephus gives us an account of an 
 Impoftor, called Theudas, when Cufpius 
 Fadus was Procurator in Judea 5 and there- 
 fore not before the fourth year of Claudius 
 the Roman Emperor A. D. 44, that is, fevea 
 years after Gamaliel's fpeech was made, 
 
 {a) Spicileg, in Adt.cap.v. 36. (6) Whitby Par. 
 
 upon this text. (c) Jof. jlmiq. Lib. xvii. cap. 
 
 ult. xviii.cap, i.DaB. Jut. Lib.vii. cap . viii. §1. 
 
 A a accord- 
 
3 j" 4 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 according to Cappellus's computation, and 
 ten years after it, according to Dr. Whitby's. 
 JOSEPHUS's words are theft: 
 1 Whilft Fadus was Procurator of yudea, 
 c a certain Impoftor called Theudas per- 
 
 * fwaded a very great multitude, taking their 
 
 * effects along with them to follow him to 
 c the river Jordan. For he faid he was a 
 < prophet, and that caufing the river to di- 
 t vide at his command, he would give them 
 
 * an cafie paflagc over. By thefe fpeeches 
 
 * he deceived many. But Fadus was far 
 1 from fuffering them to go on in their 
 
 * madneffe : for he fent out a troop of horfe, 
 
 * who, coming upon them unexpectedly, 
 ( flew many, and took many prifoners. 
 
 * Theudas himfelf was among the latter. 
 € They cut of his head, and brought it to 
 
 * jerufalem. Thefe things happened in 
 1 judea, while Cufpins Fadus was Pio- 
 1 curator (a).' 
 
 It 
 
 (a) ®uh; j «£ '\v£a.iu.$ IziTgoTrtvovTos, yaw ri$ ump, ©si'^&§ 
 
 top 'lopaouiiiv 9T07ccu/cy kvTu. zTfotyqrr^ <yb gjisysy Ewaft, >£ '.rgos-dy 
 f/jan rev KcTc&fjtjoi c^io'citi) cioaev t(py) Tragi^tiv uvto?$ deceiee/f x* 
 rtivret Atym irotitiXq fsnongoty. » p«y tiovsv ct,v7%$, TiJs etipgorvvne 
 
Chap.VIL Gospel History. 377 
 
 It may therefore be pretended, that Saint 
 Luke has made a miftake. The Theudas 
 whom jofephus mentions appeared not till 
 feveral years after Gamaliel's fpeech was 
 made. Nor has Jofephus faid any thing of 
 any other. The perfon Gamaliel fpeaks of 
 is of the lame name. He likewife boa/led 
 himfelf to be feme body, that is, a prophet* 
 He was (lain, and his followers were fcat- 
 tered. In thefe particulars Gamaliel and 
 Jojephus agree. Therefore they mean the 
 fame perfon, but they differ moft widely a. 
 bout the time. For which reafon St. Luke 
 muft have been miftaken. 
 
 Divers folutions have been offered of 
 this difficulty. 
 
 1 . Some fay, St. Luke might put the 
 affair of Theudas into Gamaliel's fpeech by 
 way of anticipation. He knew very well, 
 that Theudas did not appear till after this 
 time 5 but this being a very proper in- 
 fiance, and fuitable to the main fcope and 
 defign of the fpeech which Gamaliel 
 made, He inferted it himfelf. But this 
 is not at all agreeable to the fimplicity of 
 
 cevrov ti rot ®tva&v <£wygt)<rci.vT£$ et^env^aert rvy y.s$u><>iv, £ ko- 
 
 Aa: St,LfikS$ 
 
3 $6 The Credibility of the Boot II. 
 
 St. Luke's narration, efpccially conftdering 
 how particular he is as to the number of 
 Thendas's followers : To whom a number of 
 men> about four hundred joined themfelves. 
 And one would think Valefius was at a lofs 
 for examples of anticipation, when the only 
 one he produces is out of a Poet, and that 
 has fcarce any refemblance with this before 
 us (a). 
 
 2. Some think that Jofephus has been 
 miilaken, and has mifplaced Theudas's infur- 
 rection. This Solution Valefm prefers be- 
 fore the former ; and it is approved likewife 
 by Monfieur {b) Le Clerc. They under- 
 ftand Gamaliel to fay : Before thefe days 
 (c) that is, a little while ago rofe up Theitdas, 
 boafting himfelf to be fome body. And if 
 you look farther back (V), before this man 
 
 (not 
 
 (a) Alia quoque conciliandi ratio excogitari potcft; fidica- 
 mus B* Lucam in eo loco kclt* x^oXvi'iv lecutum efTe. Qua e 
 quidem figura occurrit interdum apud antiquos fcriptores 
 exempli caufa apud Virgilium cum dicit 
 
 fortufque require Felines. 
 
 Atqui cum haec dicerentur Aeneae, nondum condita erat VeK ai 
 Vakf. A*not. in Enfeb. H. E. L. ii. c. xi. 
 
 (£) Clcrici Hiftor. Eccl, A.D. 28. n.do. 
 
 (c) Ufc ^ Tb'Tflv v kf*t*%» avsnt ©hJ£$. Quae verba rem 
 nuper ac noviflime fa&am demonftrant. Valef. ubi fupra. 
 
 {J) Sed quoniam Cafaubonus negat Craecos unquam i 
 iocutos fuiflc, producendus eft teftis omni exceptione major. 
 
 4 I* 
 
Chap. VII. Gospel History. 3 57 
 
 (not after this man> as we render it) rofe up 
 
 Judas of Galilee. Thus, according to 
 
 Vdkfius, Jofephtts has not mifplaccd this 
 event of Theudas above twelve years ; but 
 according to Mr. LeClerc, the errour is great" 
 er, for he fuppofes he rofe tip A. D. 2g. 
 
 But this kind of Solution appears to me 
 perfectly arbitrary, and not to be untying, 
 but cutting the knot. And I freely own, I 
 have no right to them. It is very unlikely, 
 that Jofephus fhould have been miftaken a- 
 bout the time of that Theudas's infurredion 
 which he gives an account of. He may have 
 made miftakes in chronology : but Jofephtw 
 is very exprefs here, that this affair happened 
 in the time of Fadus, when he himfelf mud 
 have been feven years of age. 
 
 A n d in my opinion thefe learned men 
 give a wrong meaning to two expreffions in 
 Gamaliel's fpeech. It is not necelTary to un- 
 
 ts eft Clemens Alexandrinus, qui in lib. 7 Stromat. Tub finem, 
 eodem prorfus modo locutus eft quo B. Lucas — Nam Martian 
 tiftiem quidem tcmpcr'ibm vixit qiubns Bafdides <& Valentimis. 
 Vemm ttnquam prior cum Mis aJhxc junioribus verfatUfS eft. 
 addit dt'inde, jwȣ0* ov "Zlpm W oMyov xijguofovros y riirpa 
 v77/iKX<riv. Vofi qucm Smon praedicantem ?etrum audivit alt- 
 qttamdiu Quis non videt in hoc Clementis loco poft hunc idem 
 Valerc atque ante hunc — fed & geographiae fcriptores, quoties 
 terrarum iitum & populorum nomina defcribunt, eodem lo- 
 ■uuntur raodo. Dicuntenim yjirk r^me, urn w£m.id: ibi.L 
 
 A a 3 def- 
 
3 5*8 The Credibility of the BookIL 
 
 derftand thofc words, Before the fe days rofe 
 up Theudas, of a hi tie while ago, two or 
 three years before. Thcfe common phrafes 
 are loofe and undetermined in all languages, 
 and fignifie lomctimes, a fhorter, at others, 
 a longer fpace of time. And the fubjeQ: 
 matter of the difcourfe, or the coherence of 
 things, or feme light from abroad can alone 
 determine what the fpace of time intended is. 
 Ir is faid ; But Saul increafed the more in 
 Jtrengthj and confounded the 'Jews which 
 were at < Damafcus.—»~AnT> after that 
 many days were fulfi'led, the Jews took 
 
 ^Bs'iKi cotmfel to kill him. By thefe many days 
 can be meant but a fhort fpace of time, as 
 appears from Gal. i. 17. 18. St. Paul tells 
 Felix : Forafmtch as I know that thou haji 
 
 43. xxiv. b een °f wany years a judge unto this na- 
 tion, I do the more chear fully anfwer for 
 my fclf. Though it is likely, Felix had 
 not then been in Judea above five years. 
 And yet it might be faid very properly, that 
 he had been there many years: fince in five 
 years time, a Governour may be fuppofed to 
 gain a good infightinto the laws and cuftoms 
 pi his province, and the temper of the 
 people ; as alio, becaufe very often Govern 
 fioqrs were removed in a fhorter fpace of 
 
 time 
 
 
 JG 
 
Chap. VII. Gospel History. 359 
 
 time. When Pilate's Soldiers had marched in- 
 to Jerufalem with Enfigns, the Jews went 
 from thence in a great body to Pi/ate at 
 Cefarea, and there made Supplications , Jo- 
 fephus la) fays, many days. But it appears 
 prefently afterwards, that on the Q)) fixth day 
 from their arrival Tilate feated himfelf on 
 his Tribunal, and granted their petition. 
 So Jofiphus relates this in his Antiquities. 
 In his War thefe earned Supplications con- 
 tinued five whole days ic) and nights. 
 
 Thus thefe phrafesthat feem to import 
 a long duration, are much limited by the con- 
 nexion of a difcourfe, or by the nature of 
 the things fpoken of. And other phrafes 
 that denote ordinarily a fliorter duration, muft 
 be underftood fometimes with great lati- 
 tude. There is an example in Jeremiah ch* 
 xxxi. 31. Behold the days come faith 
 the Lord, that I will make a new covenant 
 with the houje of Ifrael, 1;. 3 3 . after 
 those days, faith the Lord, I will put my 
 law in their inward parts. I fuppofe no 
 one thinks,the(e promifes or predi&ions were 
 to be accomplished prefently. Porphyry fays 
 
 (a) iKtjiixj ^ciiij^tvoi fart sreTfca? &/*££*{. Antiq. 18. cap4. 
 
 §, I. (b) K«,TO« IKTY)V Vf/jifCtV— — — oiVTce, iTil To Otftf/aC 
 
 «»£ ibid. (c) 'Em ntvrf; ypjifecs j£ vvktols htsc$ xkwitoi 
 
 ^m^Tiffaf, lib. 2.c 9. §• 1. 
 
 A a 4 ' that 
 
%6o The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 c that many of the ancients had been fup* 
 
 * pofed to underftand the founds of birds 
 
 * and other animals, and Apollonim (a) of 
 c Tyana not long ago/ i^ApoIlonius died 
 before the end of the firft century of the 
 Chriftian Aera. 'Porphyry was not born till 
 the 232d, or 233d year (J?) of the fame 
 Aera. Every one muft be fenfible, with 
 what latitude Vorphyrifs not long ago is to 
 be underftood. 
 
 I see no neceffity therefore of reftraining 
 the fenfe of the phrafe in this text, before 
 thefe days } to two or three years. It may as 
 well intend twenty or thirty years. It is 
 plain it does fo here, fince it was not till 
 after Theudas that Judas rofe up. 
 
 Which brings me to the other phrafe 
 mifunderftood by thefe learned men : Af- 
 ter this man, fj&?<£ rSrov. The inftances 
 of the ufe of this prepofition by Geogra- 
 phers for a remoter diftance are not to the 
 point, becaufe here it imports time. And 
 as for Valefius's quotation from St. Clement, 
 I think it not worth while to confider here, 
 whether he underftand it aright or not. At 
 the beft St.Clemenfs paffage is very ob- 
 
 (/») 'Sic em p? t 3 7raXctie)v 6 M&xa,7r<&', ^ oi toixtoi, £ 
 
 jr£o jtoAAs 3 'Ano/kcmos 6 Tvaviv$. Forphyr. de Abji. lib. 3.C.3. 
 (£)Vid. Inc. [Holften. de V'.t. & Scrip- forphyr. cap. r. 
 
 fcure 
 
Chap. VII. Gospel History. 361 
 
 (cure and perplexed. St. Luke's phrafe is 
 one of the mofl common phrafes in all the 
 Greek language, and is ever underftood as it 
 is rendered in this place by our tranllators. 
 It would beunreafonable to affix a new mean- 
 ing to a very common phrafe upon the 
 fmgle authority of one obfcure paffage. This 
 is faid upon the fuppcfition that the phrafe 
 in St. Clement was the fame with that in 
 St. Luke, and that the fenfeaffigned by Va- 
 le (ius to St. Clement's palTage was the mod 
 likely fenfe of any. But indeed the phrafe in 
 St. Clement is not the fame, and for that 
 reafon is of thelefs weight here. 
 
 I suppose then that our tranflation is 
 juft, and that the fubftance of this part of 
 Gamaliel's fpeech is this: Not long fince 
 rofe up Theudas. It might be thirty years 
 or more. The perfons he fpoke to knew 
 very well how long. And after this man, 
 in the time of the celebrated alTeffemcnt, 
 when Judea was made a Roman province > 
 rofe up Judas of Galilee. Both thefe men 
 perifhed, and their adherents were fcattercd. 
 
 3. And the Solution, already offered 
 by divers learned (a) men, of the difficulty 
 under confideration, appears to me perfe&ly 
 
 (a) Cafsub. Exercit. in Baron, ii. n. 18. prot. & Hamm. i* 
 48> v.3<\ juft. 
 
B &i The Credibility of the Book IL 
 
 juft. There were two Tfoeudas's in Judea 
 that were irnpoftors, one before Judas of 
 Galilee, and another in the reign of C/^/- 
 d'tus. There is no miftake upon this head 
 in Jofephus, nor in St. L#&, who has given 
 us an exa<ft and true account of Gamaliel's 
 ipeech. 
 
 It is not at all unlikely that there fhould 
 be two irnpoftors in Judea of the fame 
 name in the compafs of about forty f a) 
 years, and that they fnould both come to the 
 lame end. Thefe are the two chief difficult 
 ties in this matter, and they may be both 
 cleared up. 
 
 (i.) It is not at all ftrange that there fhould 
 be two irnpoftors in judea of the name 
 Tkeudas^ inthefpaceof forty years. There 
 were feveral irnpoftors named Simon. Be- 
 fide Simon Magus, mentioned in the New 
 Tejiament, and often fpoken of by the firfl: 
 Chriftian writers, there was one Simon a 
 fervant of Herod, who, after his matter's 
 death, had the impudence to fet himfelf up 
 
 (a) The interval cannot be fhorter. Jofephus's TbeuJas 
 could not appear before the year 44.. Gamaliel's Theudas rofe 
 up before Judas of Galihe, who made his difiurbance in the 
 6th or 7th year of the Chriftian iEra. 
 
 for 
 
Chap. VII. Gospel History. 363 
 
 foTKing, and put {a) on a diadem. After a 
 long and obftinate engagement with Gratus> 
 he was defeated, and his men were difperfed. 
 He was taken prifoner, and by Gratus's order 
 his head was (J?) cut off. There was another 
 Simon, fon of yudds of Galilee, who was 
 crucified in the (c) reign of Claudius by 
 Tiberius Alexander, governour of Judea 
 zfaxFadus. There was in the time of Felix 
 one Simon of Cyprus, who pretended to 
 Magic. I have already mentioned him in 
 another place (b). 
 
 There were like wife feveral yudas's 
 who gave difturbance to this country in a 
 very fhort time. yudas of Galilee was a 
 noted perfon, mentioned here by Gamaliel, 
 and oftentimes by Jofephus. He rofe up in 
 the time of the taxing prefently after the re- 
 moval of ^Arckelaus. There was (d) another 
 Judas (c), fon of Ezechias, who foon af- 
 ter 
 
 Tji uxgxrict T 7r£ayp,u,Tuv, huh) pa. rs iTo\u,r,<ri 7rsn>i6i^. Ant la. 
 17. C. 12*. §. 6. (b) Teocrcc, ivrv%m tjjv xtQoiMv tenrtfjum 
 
 ibid. (c) Ibid. I. zo. c.4. §.i, (b J Vol.1. 
 
 P- 34. (</) 'I»<^5 J v 'Eft*/* t>«»?, x.>, Antiq. 17. 
 
 cap. 12. §.5-. (c) Archbifhop t//7;<?r thinks this 7«^ 
 
 to \>t Gamaliel's Tbeudas. ' For whereas Jehudah of the He- 
 brew* is the fame with Theuiab of the Syrians, from whence 
 Judas wATbaddeus [compare Lnkew\ 9 16, with Mark in. 18. ~] 
 "and much rather Jhtndat, the fame name plainly comes. This 
 
 pin 
 
3 64 The Credibility of the Book IL 
 
 tcr Herod's death affected regal authority, 
 and did a great deal of mi (chief. There 
 was one Judas 7 fon of Sepphoraeus, a man 
 in great reputation for his skill in the law, 
 who with fome others raifed a Sedition 
 during Herod's laft fickneffe. He and fome of 
 his confederates (a) were burnt alive. So 
 that there were three men of the fame name, 
 who in the fpace of about ten years raifed 
 commotions in Judea. 
 
 (2.) Nor is the agreement of character 
 and circumftances mentioned by Gamaliel 
 and Jofephus a proof they fpeak of one 
 and the fame perfon. There are but two par- 
 ticulars of this fort : That they pretended to 
 be extraordinary perfons, and that they were 
 flain and their followers fcattered or brought 
 to nought. But in this there is nothing ex- 
 traordinary. Though there had been yet 
 more circumftances, in which they had a- 
 greed, this would have been no proof that 
 one and the fame perfon is fpoken of. 
 
 GAMALIEL&ys: Theudas boafted 
 himfelf to be fome body, and he was Jlain : 
 Jofephus, that Theudas faid he was a pro- 
 phet, and his head was cut off. 
 
 « Judas feems A be no other than Theudas, of whom Gamaliel 
 * fpeal«-tfcfr v. 36/ Annals p-797« 
 da) DeBeJL l,x. c.33. §. 1.-4. 
 
 yOSEPHC/S 
 
Chap. VII. Gospel History. 36^ 
 
 J O S E P H US has informed us, con- 
 cerning the Theudas he fpeaks of, that he 
 got a good number of people to follow him 
 to Jordan. Though Gamaliel and Jofephus 
 had concurred in fo particular a circumflance 
 as this (which they do not) yet it would not 
 have been a fufficient reafon for our fuppo- 
 fing that they intended the fame perfon. 
 
 I shall give an inftance. Of Simon {a) 
 above-mentioned, fervant of Herod, Jofe- 
 phus fays, that he plundered and burnt the 
 palace at Jericho. And that he burnt feve- 
 ral royal houfes in divers parts, having firft 
 given them to be plundered by his followers. 
 He fays alfo, that the people with Simon 
 were chiefly (b) Teraeans, or people that 
 lived on the other fide of Jordan* After- 
 ward, even while he is fpeaking of affairs 
 that paffed in Judea foon after the death of 
 Herod, he fays that • ztAmatha near Jordan 
 • a Royal Palace was burnt down by a num- 
 c ber of men very much like thofe who were 
 I with (c) Simon' 
 
 (4) To cv 'ligtxitvTi fixa-fauo* layunfpri JV ugirxyvi ccyut 
 tcc ty>cccruXi^UfJU{Jtjivei. Antiq. 17. C.12, 6, 
 (£) To T£ aroAt* T 2 Tlfgoctvv ibid. 
 (c) KuTtTrgYioSyj 3 >£ rot «r» rZ 'Ug$&*$ zctxjmZ ci 'Afjb*6c~$ 
 
 fi&Ti'faict v&9 rtvay evrwrw uvtyw 2»j*Aiw tfxfurtys'Wf, ibid, 
 
 I? 
 
%66 The Credibility of the Book It 
 
 If Jofephus had omitted this laft fad, 
 and fome other hiftorian had related it, to- 
 gether with the name of the leader of this 
 body of men, and given them their charact- 
 er 5 which, if true, muft have refembled 
 that of the men with Simon 5 unlefs the re- 
 putation of this hiftorian had been very well 
 eftablifhed, it would have been thought that 
 he was miftaken, arid the perfon he meant 
 was Simon, though he called him by another 
 name. A 'palace burnt down at i^Amatha, 
 by Jordan. Who could thefe be but Si- 
 mon's people, who, Jofephus fays, were 
 moftly Taraeans? Then the time agrees 
 exa&ly : Both fads in the abfence of Ar- 
 chelaus from Judea after his father's death. 
 This writer therefore muft have been grofly 
 miftaken in the name of the perfon to whom 
 he afcribes the conduit of this a&ion. 
 
 Or,it is not unlikely^thatCritics^ight have 
 been divided : Some would have vindicated 
 Jofephus, and fome the other writer. And 
 yet they would have been all miftaken, un- 
 lefs they had allowed two different bodies of 
 men, and two different matters to be fpoken 
 of, and that both the hiftorians were in the 
 right. 
 
 S It 
 
Chap.VIL Gospel History. 367 
 
 I t is certain, that thefe impoftors about 
 thistime hadarefemblance in their pretenfions 
 and their fates : one boafted he would give 
 his followers a pafiage over Jordan, as 
 Jofephus's Theudas : another promifcd his 
 people they fhould fee the walls of Jerufa- 
 lem fall down before them, as the Egyp- 
 tian Impoftor. The great fcene of expecta- 
 tion was the (a) wildernefie. But in this 
 they agreed univcrfally, the company was 
 routed and difperfed, and ufually the leaders 
 executed. This, we may be certain was 
 the cafe, or elfe the government had been 
 overturned. 
 
 These few circumftances then, in which 
 Gamaliels Theudas refembles him mention- 
 ed by Jofephns are no good argument that 
 one and the fame perfon is intended. 
 
 Besides, there is one material circum. 
 fiance in which they differ. Gamaliel 
 fays : before thefe days rofe up Theudas,'--- 
 to whom a number of tnen 9 about four 
 hundred joined tkemfelves. But Jofepkus 
 fays of his Theudas, that he perfwaded a 
 'very great multitude to follow him. And 
 that many were flam, and many taken fri- 
 foners. Jofephus's Theudas therefore muft 
 
 {a) M*ttk*xx'w> 16. Jofefh, Antiq. 20. cap. 7. 6, & alibi. 
 
 have 
 
3 63 The Credibility of the Book II 
 
 have had with him a much larger company 
 than the former. 
 
 (3.) It has been very well obferved by 
 (a) Dr. Whitby^ that the ancients generally 
 agreed there was a Theudas before the com- 
 ing of our Lord, though Jofephus has taken 
 no notice of him. Beza (J?) was of opi- 
 nion that the Theudas, of whom Gamaliel 
 fpeaks, did not arife before our Saviour's 
 nativity, but foon after Herod's death, in that 
 fort of interregnum,which there was in Judea, 
 whilft ^Archelaus was at Rome. Which 
 was alfo Archbifliop Ufar's opinion, as I 
 have {hewn above. 
 
 It is certain that this was a time of theut- 
 moft confufion. Jofephus has mentioned 
 feveral by name who then gave disturbance 
 in that country, and hinted at mifchiefs done 
 by others, whofe names he has not put down. 
 It is plain he has pad by many more than he 
 has mentioned. For he fays : * At that 
 * time (r) there were innumerable diftur- 
 < bances in Judea'. 
 
 'lx&xioic, fjusyecv rma txvrov Myav. Orig. Cont* Celj. p. 44. See 
 more citations in Whitby upon the place. (6) In 
 
 loc. (c) 3 Ev Tttra j y^ srspot, [Aivgicc 6o£vfim s%o[/jMc6 r>)v 
 
 JvPumv K«TsA*f*0«wf. Anti^. 17. c. 12. §. 4, vid. 8c d% B t 
 1.2. 04, 
 
 Con* 
 
Chap. VII. Gospel History. 369 
 
 Considering all thcfe things, that 
 there had been before this many pretenders 
 in Judea-, that Jofephus has been far from 
 mentioning all that rofe up in the later end of 
 Herod's reign, and in that remarkable time 
 of confuflon which fucceeded his death; fince 
 there had been in this country in a very ihort 
 time divers adventurers for power and au- 
 thority of one and the fame name 5 and fince 
 Theudas (a) was no uncommon name among 
 the Jews-, and fince thefe leaders of parties 
 and factions very much refcmbled each other, 
 and that fometimes in more particulars than 
 thofe fpecified by Gamaliel, it is not at all 
 unlikely that there were two Theudas's who 
 were impoftors. We may depend upon it 
 there were» Gamaliel fpeaks of one who 
 was before Judas of Galilee, and Jofephus 
 of another in the time of Claudius. 
 
 Indeed I am fomewhat furprized that 
 any learned man fhould find it hard to believe, 
 that there were two Impoftors in Judea of 
 the name of Theudas in the compafs of for- 
 ty years (b). 
 
 BJTRICL 
 
 (a) Frequens erat id romen apud Hebraeos. Itaque noa 
 mirum eft diverfis temporibus plures extitiiTe fadtiofbs homines 
 ejufdem nominis. Grot, in loo (b) Duos enim 
 
 Theudas fuifle, qui fe prephetas efTe mentiti, alter _poft alte- 
 
3 yo The Credibility of the Book II. 
 BATRICIT>ES, Patriarch of A- 
 lexandrta about the middle of the eighth 
 century, fuppofed that the High-Prieft Simon, 
 firnamed the Jit/l, and who according to 
 other Hiflorians (a) died about 290 years 
 before the Chriftian Aera, and Simeon^ who 
 took our Saviour into his arms when he was 
 prefented at the temple, were one and the fame 
 perfon, and that he was then 3 50 years of 
 age (£). I do not fay, thefe two miftakes are 
 equal 5 but the pretence for thus confound- 
 ing two pcrfons is juft the fame, in both thefe 
 caies, which is the agreement in name and 
 character. For the High-Prieft's name is 
 fometimes writ Simeon : He was called the 
 juft : And the Evangelift fays, that Simeon 
 was just and devout. 
 
 rum Judaeos ad fpem rerum novarum concitaverint,nunquam 
 adduci poflum ut acdzw, Falef. ubi fupra. 
 
 (a) S:e Prideaux Conn. Part. i. Book 8. year before Chrift 
 zoi. (b) In feptuaginta autem fuit vir y qui nun- 
 
 cupate eft Simeon Jujltts; is qui except ulnis Dominum no* 
 fir urn Chrtftum e Templo.-—Trcduxit autem Dms ei vitae ter- 
 tnkum, adeo ut viveret CCCL annos, & videret Dominum 
 noflrum Chriflum. ®)utm cum vidiffet, dixit, nunc dimitte 
 fewum tuum O Dcmine, &o apud Selden. De Succ. in Pontif, 
 L. i c.vii. 
 
 ►SI 
 
 Chap. 
 
Chap.VIIL Gospel History. 371 
 
 Chap. VIII. 
 Of the Egyptian Impoftor* 
 
 HERE is yet another particular, 
 in which it has been thought by 
 fome that Jofephus contradids 
 St. Luke. In the xxi. of the AEis of the 
 Apoflles is the account of the uproar at Je- 
 rufalem, when the Jews apprehended Taal 
 and would have killed him. When the 
 chief captain had taken him from the Jews, 
 and had got him in his own cuftody, it is 
 faid, he put this queftion to him : Art not 
 thou that Egyptian, which before thefe days 
 madefl an uproar, and leddeft out into the 
 wilderneffe four thousand men thatABsxiiu 
 were murderers? * 8 ' 
 
 The obje&ion lies againft the number 
 here mentioned. For Jofephus, fpeaking of 
 this fame Egyptian, fays : he gathered K> 
 gether thirty thoufand men. 
 
 Bb 2 
 
 Ws 
 
3 7 f The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 We have the ftory twice told in Jofe- 
 phiis^ in his Antiquities ^ and in his Hiftory of 
 the -jewtjh JVar. I (hall fet down Jofephus\ 
 words, and leave it to the reader to judge, 
 whether an objection of any weight can be 
 formed againft St. Luke from the account we 
 have of this affair in Jofephus. I (hall in the 
 firft place tranfcribe the account in the jew- 
 ijh JVar, bccaufe that was firft writ. 
 
 'But the Egyptian falfe prophet 
 f brought a yet heavier difafter upon the Jews. 
 <• For this impoftor coming into the country 
 1 and gaining the reputation of a prophet, 
 
 * gathered together thirty thoufand men who 
 ' were deceived (a) by him. Having brought 
 
 * them round out of the wildernefle up to 
 
 * the mount of Olives, he intended from 
 1 thence to make his attack upon Jerufalem y 
 c and having beaten the Roman Guard, to 
 
 * bring the people into fubje&ion to him, 
 « and govern them by the help of the men 
 c whom he had got with him. But Felix 
 i coming fuddenly upon him with the Ro- 
 
 * man Soldiers, prevented the attack: and 
 
 (a) Mii^cvi 3 returns TrPwyy 'la^etta^ ixecKuirtv o ' ' ktyuxri®* 
 •tyiv^oTrpofyTW 7rxpoc,yivo[A£vo$ y> si$ rw %af>Kv, cinQgayros yot)$ t k} 
 7rpc$>>iTX xWi» t7ri$tl<; ittvrS, mpi Tyurytvyuic, p ciSgoiQi t mctrn. 
 (jsjivuv ninety uyW^ olvthsom t«$ &£>j^oi<*$ u$ to' Ehc&icvv xahyyjivey 
 
 ef>K K. A. 
 
 ' all 
 
Chap. VIII. G os pfl History. 373 
 
 < (a) all the people joined with him in their 
 
 c own defenfe, fo that, when they came to 
 
 engage, the Egyptian fled, followed by a 
 
 * a few only. A great number of thofe 
 € that were with him were cither {lain or 
 € taken prifoners. The reft of the multi- 
 c tude being fcattered fhifted for them- 
 
 * felves as they could/ 
 
 The account he gives of this affair in 
 the Antiquities is thus : ' About the fame 
 c time (Joe had been [peaking of fome other 
 events in the beginning of Nero's reign) 
 1 there came (b) a perlbn out of Egypt to 
 c Jerufalem, who pretended to be a Prophet, 
 ' and having perfwaded a good number of 
 
 * the meaner fort of people to follow him to 
 1 the Mount of Olives, he told them, tha t 
 
 («) Kxi TtXf, OVf/jOC, <rvmpv;yo(,TO TVjC, XfAVVW U$l (TVl/jfio^ 
 
 A«5 yivofAfvys, T ft 'AtyvSfTim Qvytiv fAtr' o^yav , 2ixq>6xfivxi 
 *7 fyfyfi&tp* 1 nteWS c vv &VTW. re jj \oi7rot zrA»j0os CKi^xir&if 
 im tw ixvrav ix.a<rov hxXxQuv De Bell. i. c. i3-§. <,. 
 
 (£) 'AQlXVUTXt 2) T'S *\ ' AiytiltT* X.XTX TXTOV Toy xxifov lie, roc 
 
 'ifgotroXt/px, xpotyKT'lS tweet Xiyay, t§ cvfjufiuXivwv tZ fa/tomx* 
 7>M6u (tuv xvtu kpc$ cpot, to 7rfo(rxyof>tvof/jtyey 'EXxieov tp- 
 %te% ■ >6steiv y> i(pxo-KO> uvTcTq tKtTCiv t7ri&7£xi, «J$, x.itev<rxvT<>s y 
 uvtv, nlzToi Tot Tm 'liPo<rcXvjjt*av Tii%n> JY av tw u<ro£ov xv- 
 To?s 7TXPi%uv tTnjyyiT&tTo' <I>i}A<| y &><; ixvdeTo txZtx, xtMvti Tki 
 
 fOXTiUTX$ XVXXxfiiXv TX 07TXx, >£ f/ATX 7TO?ke0V iTmiuv Tt *$ *iZa» 
 CPfAYlTXi ^5T9 TUV '\lfOfrt)>:jyjC>)y 7TfiO(rfix?&il To7<; 7TiPl T 'AiyV7TTW}£ 
 
 TtTgXKe<rix<; p uvrav xvuX% t $\xy.oirlv<i j ^avlxs'tXxfla 6 j' ' fayunTios 
 faros hxtyenrxc, <m T «s i*x%i)<; xQxvm iyitttr Antiq.zo.c. 7 §.6. 
 
 JJ b 3 « from 
 
374 The Credibility of the Book IL 
 
 * from thence he would let them fee the walls 
 
 * of Jemjalem faji down at his command, 
 
 * and promifed through them to give them 
 
 * entrance into the City. But Felix being 
 
 * informed of thefe things ordered his fol- 
 ' diersto their arms. And marching out of 
 e Jerufakm with a large body of horfe and 
 < foot, fell upon thofe who were with the 
 c Egyptian : killed four hundred of them, 
 
 * and took two hundred prifoners. But the 
 
 * Egyptian getting out of the fight, efcap'd'* 
 The reader , if he thinks it needful, 
 
 may confult the commentators and other 
 writers who (#) have confidered this dif- 
 ficulty. Grot'ws fuppofes, that they were 
 at firft but four thoufand^ but that at length 
 they increafed to the number of thirty thou- 
 fund. Valejius reckons there were four thou- 
 fand only that were murderers or Sicarii, tho' 
 the whole company amounted to the number 
 Jofep bus mentions. Y)t.Whttby thinks,that it 
 is likely the number in Jofephus was original- 
 ly three thou fand. And certainly none of thefe 
 folutions are contemptible. But, for my 
 own part, I think there is more need of re- 
 
 (a) Grot. Whitby in loc. Jofepb. p. 107$. not. p. Valef. 
 tn&ijeb. Hid. L.ii.cap.u. 
 
 conciling 
 
Chap. VIII. Gospel History. 377 
 
 conciling Jofephus with himfelf, or at leaft 
 one of thefe accounts with the other, than 
 to reconcile St. Luke with Jofephus. 
 
 If indeed we had any good reafon to 
 think, that the number in Jofephus was ori- 
 ginally three thoufand , the difagrcement 
 would be fmali. The number of a multi- 
 tude got together in a fhort time, and foon 
 difperfed, might not be exactly known : 
 the chief captain at Jerufakm might com- 
 pute them at four thoufand, and Jofephus 
 think they were but three thoufand. 
 
 D r. Aldrich has propofed another very 
 ingenious conje&ure : that originally the 
 number of the whole company in Jofephus's 
 War of the Jews was four thoufand, and 
 that the number of two hundred faid in the 
 Antiquities to be taken prifoners was ori- 
 ginally two thoufand: Both which errors 
 might happen only by a very fmall altera- 
 tion {a). 
 
 But I choofe not to infift upon any of thefe 
 Solutions, which rely on emendations made 
 without the authority of any Manufcripts. 
 
 (a) Sufpicamur interim pro<5Weo-i»s fcriptum olim <JV#<Pw* 5 
 p?rmutatis A & <^ vel etiam A. & A. ex TtTp**^^* fa&um 
 tile Tpia-yjvfoq ne dubitamus quidem. Mdr. in Jofytf?. 1075. 
 Net p. 
 
 B b 4 The 
 
37^ The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 The numbers in Jofephus are at prefent 
 plainly faulty. In the firft account he fays 
 they were thirty thoufand in all, and that a 
 great number of thefe were either flain or 
 taken prifoners. I might have rendered the 
 words, the moft of them. But though I 
 do not give them that fenfe, yet certainly 
 the four hundred jlain and two hundred 
 taken prifoners, in the other account, can- 
 not be reckoned zgreat number or a large 
 part of thirty thoufand. 
 
 B u t then, as I do not infift on thefe 
 tonjcdural emendations for reconciling Jo- 
 fepkus with St. Luke ; fo, on the other 
 hand, would be very unfair, firft to take 
 k for granted that the number of thirty 
 thoufand in Jofephus is right, and then ar- 
 bitrarily to reform all the other numbers in 
 him, in order to form an obje&ion againft 
 the New Teftament. 
 
 I think therefore there can be no ob- 
 jection brought againft the numbers in Saint 
 Luke from what jofephus has faid of this 
 affair, becaufe his two accounts are not con- 
 fident one with another in this point : And 
 that is fufficient. 
 
 But yet I cannot leave the Hiftory 
 Jofephus has given us of this Egyptian, 
 
 with- 
 
Chap. VIII. Go spfl History, ^yy 
 
 without making two or three obfervati- 
 ons. 
 
 i. The chief captain here asks Saint 
 
 Paul: Art not thou that Egyptian which 
 
 {a) leddest out into the mlderneffe?-— 
 
 which feems to imply, fince the queftion was 
 
 asked at Jerufalem, that thefe men, or a 
 
 good number of them at left, were drawn 
 
 out of Jerufalem: And Jofephus fays ex- 
 
 prefly in the later account, that thi* impoftor 
 
 came out of Egypt to Jerufalem j and pen 
 
 faaded a good number of the meaner fort of 
 
 people, (/. e. who werp there) to follow 
 
 him. 
 
 2. The chief captain fpeaks of their 
 being led out into the wildernesse. This 
 circumftance Jofephus has mentioned in the 
 firft account, where he more particularly re- 
 lates their march, and the compafie they 
 took, than in the other. 
 
 3. This Egyptian efcaped. Jofephus 
 has put down this in both places, and un- 
 doubtedly this is fuppofed in the queftion 
 put to St. Taul by the chief captain. The 
 agreement in this particular deferves to be 
 taken notice of, becaufe it was the com. 
 
 (a) 'O ilayxyar* 
 
 WW 
 
378 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 mon fate of thefe impoftors to perifh them- 
 feves with a good number of their followers 
 
 4. This Egyptian caufed this diftur- 
 bance, according to Jofephus, when Felix 
 was Governour of Judea. This impoftor 
 therefore did not arife any long time be- 
 fore the feifure of St. Taul at ^erufalem. 
 He might be ftill living therefore : In this 
 refpeft there was no abfurdity in this quefti- 
 on of the chief captain. ;> 
 
 5. Another particular, which we are 
 obliged to Jofphus for, is, that all the peo- 
 ple (fc. at Jerufalem) favoured, or joined 
 with Felix, upon this occafion, in their 
 own defenie : That is, all but fome very 
 mean people. If Jofephus had not men- 
 tioned this, perhaps it would have been faid : 
 Since confiderable numbers ufually joined 
 thefe impoftors, and it is likely more favoured 
 them ; how was it poffible, that the chief 
 captain fliould ask Paul, when he faw the 
 whole city was in an uproar, and the peo- 
 ple were ready to tear him to pieces : Art not 
 thou that Egyptian ? That pretended pro- 
 phet, that before thefe days madeft an up- 
 roar ? A man of a favourite character at this 
 time among the Jews I 
 
 1 THINK 
 
Chap.VIIL Gospel History. 379 
 
 I think indeed, that if Jofephus had 
 omitted this circumftance, it would have 
 been a very good reply, to fay, that the 
 chief captain did not yet know what was 
 the matter : And though there was a loud 
 cry in the multitude, of away with him 5 
 Yet the confufion was fuch, fome fay- 
 ing one thing, and fome another 5 that the 
 chief captain had yet no notion what the 
 cafe was. However we have now no oc- 
 cafion to have recourfe to this reply. Jofe- 
 phus has told us, that all the people favoured 
 Felix in his enterprize againft this man : 
 whether it was becaufe he came from Egypt , 
 or what was the reafon, is of no importance. 
 
 (5. There is a remarkable agreement 
 between the chief captain in the A£ls and 
 'Jofephus, in the defcription they give of this 
 man. The chief captain fays : Art not thou 
 that Egyptian? And it is obfervable, that 
 Jofephus has not mentioned this man's name 
 in either of the accounts. In the firft he 
 calls him the Egyptian falfe prophet, and 
 the Egyptian. In the other, he fays, there 
 came one (or a certain perfon) out of E- 
 gypt : And again, Felix fell upon thofe 
 who were with th$ Egytian : But the 
 E K Uiw n efcaped. 
 
380 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 W e have therefore in the t^iEis the ex- 
 att manner, in which the Jews about this 
 time fpoke of this impoftor. This is with 
 me a proof, that St. Luke lived and wrote 
 about this time : that is, at the time he is 
 fuppofed to write. We have here undoubt- 
 edly the chief captain's queflio* in the very 
 words in which it was put. St. Luke muft 
 have received this account from St. Paul, or 
 fome one elfe who was prefent, if he was 
 not by himfelf. 
 
 After all thefe points of agreement 
 we may be allowed to fuppofe, that, if 
 we had Jofephus's original numbers (the 
 only material particular in which his two ac- 
 counts differ the one from the other and from 
 St. Luke) they would have been exa&ly, 
 or very near the fame with thofe in the 
 Atts. 
 
^Sr 
 
 THE 
 
 CONCLUSION. 
 
 IH A V E now performed what I under- 
 took, and have (hewn that the account 
 given by the Sacred Writers of perfons and 
 things is confirmed by other ancient authors 
 of the beft note. There is nothing in the books 
 of the New Teftament unfuitable to the age in 
 which they are fuppofed to have been writ. 
 There appears in thefe Writers a knowledge 
 of the affairs of thofe times not to be found 
 in authors of later ages. We are hereby af- 
 filed, that the books of the New Tefta- 
 ment are genuine^ and that they were writ 
 by perfons who lived at or near the time of 
 thofe events of which they have given the 
 hiftorj. 
 
 Any one may be fenfible, how hard it 
 is for the moft learned, acute, and cautious 
 man to write a book in the chara&er of fome 
 perfon of an earlier age 5 and not betray his 
 own time by fome miftake about the affairs 
 of the age in which he pretends to place 
 
 him- 
 
3 82 The Credibility of the Book IL 
 
 himfelf, or by allufions to cuftoms or prin- 
 ciples fmce fprung up, or by fome phrafe or 
 expreflion not then in ufe. It is no eafy 
 thing to efcape all thefe dangers in the fmalleft 
 performance, though it be a treatife of theory 
 or fpeculation. Thefe hazards are greatly 
 encreafed, when the work is of any length? 
 and efpecially if it be hiftorical, and be con- 
 cerned with chara&ers and cuftoms. It is 
 yet more difficult to carry on fuch a defign in 
 a work confiding of feveral pieces, writ to 
 all appearance by feveral perfons. Many in- 
 deed are defirous to deceive, but all hate to 
 be deceived. And therefore, though attempts 
 have been made to impofe upon the world 
 in this way, they have never or very rarely 
 fucceeded, but have been dete&ed and ex- 
 pofed by the skill and vigilance of thofe 
 who have been concerned for the truth. 
 
 The Volume of \ht~$ew Tejlamentcon- 
 fifts of feveral pieces. Thefe are afcribed to 
 eight feveral perfons. And there are the 
 ftrongeft appearances that they were not all 
 writ by any one hand, but by as many 
 perfons as they are afcribed to. There are 
 lefler differences in the relations of fome 
 fads, and fuch feeming contradiftions as 
 would never have happened, if thefe books 
 
 had 
 
Gospel History. 383 
 
 had been all the work of one perfon, or of 
 feveral who writ in concert. There are as 
 manypeculiarities of temper andftilc 5 as there 
 are names of writers : divers of which fhew 
 no depth of Genius, or compafle of know- 
 ledge. Here are reprefentations of the titles, 
 pods, behaviour of perfons of higher and 
 lower rank in many parts of the world. 
 Perfons are introduced, and their chara&ers 
 are fet in a full light. Here is a hiftory of 
 things done in feveral cities and countries, 
 and there are allufions to a vaft variety of 
 cuftoms and tenets of perfons of feveral na- 
 tions, fetts, and religions. The whole is 
 writ without affe&ation, with the greateft 
 fimplicity and plainneffe, and is confirmed 
 by other ancient writers of unqueftioned 
 authority. 
 
 If it be difficult for a perfon of learning 
 and experience to compofe a fmall treatife 
 concerning matters of fpeculation, with the 
 characters of a more early age than that in 
 which he writes ; it is next to impoffible, 
 that fuch a work of confiderable length, 
 confifting of feveral pieces, with a great 
 variety of hiftorical fads, reprefentations of 
 characters, principles, and cuftoms of feve- 
 ral nations and diftant countries, of perfons 
 4. of 
 
3 84- The Credibility of the Book It 
 
 of all ranks and degrees, of many interefis 
 and parties, fhould be performed by eight 
 feveral perfons, the moft of them unlearned, 
 without any appearance of concert. 
 
 I might perhaps have called this argu- 
 ment a demonftration, if that term had not 
 been often mifapplied by men of warm 
 imaginations, and been beftowed upon rea- 
 foningsthat have but afmall degree of pro- 
 bability. But though it fhould not be a drift 
 demonftration , that thefe writings are 
 genuine : or though it be not abfolutely im- 
 poflible in the nature of the thing, that 
 the books of the New Tejlament fhould 
 have been compofed in a later age than that 
 to which they are affigned, and of which 
 they have innumerable characters 5 yet, I 
 think, it is in the higheft degree improbable, 
 and altogether incredible. 
 
 / F the books of the New Tejlament 
 were writ by perfons who lived before the 
 deftruffion of Jerufalem, that is, if they 
 were writ at the time in which they are 
 [aid to have been writ, the things related 
 in them are true. If they had not been 
 matter of fad, they would not have been 
 credited by any perfons near that time, and 
 in thofe parts of the world in which they 
 
 arc 
 
Gospel History. 38 f 
 
 are laid to have been done, but would have 
 been treated as the moil: notorious lies and 
 falihhoods. Suppofe three or four books 
 fhould now appear amongft us in the lan- 
 guage moft generally understood, giving an 
 account of many remarkable and extraor- 
 dinary events which had happened in (bme 
 kingdome of Europe, and in the mod noted 
 cities of the countries next adjoining to it 5 
 fome of them faid to have happened between 
 fixty and feventy years ago, others between 
 twenty and thirty, others nearer our own 
 time : Would not they be looked upon as 
 the moft manifeft and ridiculous forgeries 
 and impoftures that ever were contrived > 
 Would great numbers of perfons, in thofe 
 very places, change their religious principles 
 and praclifes upon the credit of things repor- 
 ted to be publickly done which no man had 
 ever heard of before ? Or rather, is it poffible 
 that fucha defign as this fhould be conceived 
 by any fober and ferious perfons, cr even 
 the moft wild and extravagant ? 
 
 I F the hifiory of the New Tejtament 
 be credible, the Chrijiian Religion is true. 
 If the things here related to have been 
 done by Jefus, and by his followers, by vir- 
 tue of powers derived from him, do not 
 
 C c prove 
 
386 The Credibility of the Book II. 
 
 prove a perfon to come from God, and that 
 his doftrine is true and divine, nothing can^ 
 And as Jefus does here in the circumftances 
 of his birth, life, fufFerings, and after ex- 
 altation, and in the fucceffe of his do&rine 
 anfwer the defcription of the great perfon 
 promifed and foretold in the Old Tejla,- 
 ment, he is at the fame time fhewed to be 
 the Meffiah. 
 
 FROM the agreement of the writers 
 of the New Teflament with other ancient 
 writers we are net only affured that thefe 
 books are genuine, but alfo that they are 
 come down to us pure and uncorrupted, 
 without any confiderable interpolations or 
 alterations. If fuch had been made in 'em, 
 there would have appeared fome fmaller 
 differences at left between them and other 
 ancient writings. 
 
 There has been in all ages a wicked 
 propenfity in mankind to advance their own 
 notions and fanfics by deceits and forgeries. 
 They have been practifed by Heathens^ 
 Jews, and Chriftians, in iupport of ima- 
 ginary hiftorical fads, religious ichemesand 
 pra&ifes, and political interefts. With thefe 
 views fome whole books have been forged, 
 and pafTages inferted into others of undoubt- 
 ed 
 
Gospel History, &c. 3 87 
 
 ed authority. Many of the Chriftian wri- 
 ters of the fecond and third centuries, and 
 of the following ages appear to have had 
 falfe notions concerning the ftate of Judea 
 between the nativity of Jefus and the de. 
 ftru&ion of Jerufalem, and concerning many 
 other things occafionally mentioned in the 
 New Tejiament. The confent of the beft 
 ancient writers with thofe of the New 
 Tejiament is a proof, that thefe books are 
 ftill untouched, and that they have not been 
 new modelled and altered by Chriftians of 
 later times in conformity to their own pe- 
 culiar Sentiments. 
 
 This may be reckoned an argument, 
 that the generality of Chriftians have had 
 a very high veneration for thefe book:, 5 or 
 elfe, that the feveral feds among them have 
 had an eye upon each other, that no altera- 
 tions might be made in thofe writings to 
 which they have all appealed. It is alfo 
 an argument, that the Divine Providence 
 has all along watched over and guarded 
 thefe beft of books (a very fie objefl: of 
 an efpecial care) which contain the beft of 
 principles, were apparently writ with the 
 beft views, and have in them inimitable 
 chara&ers of truth and Ilmplicity. 
 
 C c z AN 
 
388 
 
 A N 
 
 APPENDIX 
 
 Concerning the time of 
 Herod's death. 
 
 N all enquiries concern- 
 ing the chronology of 
 the Neiv Tejlament, and 
 particularly concerning 
 the true time of our Sa- 
 viour's nativity, and the 
 commencement of his miniftry, it is very 
 needful to take into confederation the time 
 of Herod the Great's death. Indeed it is 
 very desirable in the firft place to fettle 
 exactly the date of this event. But to do 
 this is a veiy hard task. Nor has any one 
 yet been (o happy, as to remove all difficul- 
 ties 
 
y4 T T E N T> I X. 389 
 
 ties and give univerfal iatisfatfion upon this 
 head. 
 
 That none may be quite at n lofle in 
 judging of the difficulty confidered in the 
 
 third chapter of this Volume, I (hall here 
 give a brief account of this matter. 
 
 The chief opinions at prefent concern- 
 ing the time of Herod's death are thefc 
 three. Some think he died a little before 
 the pafibver of A, U. 750, Julian year 
 42. others, on Novemb. 25, that fame year: 
 others, a fnort time before the Pafibver, 
 A.U. 751. 
 
 §\ I. The Englifh reader may fee all, 
 in a manner, that can be (aid for the fecond 
 opinion, in Mr. fVhifton's Jhort View of the 
 Harmony of the four Evangeiifls, Prop.iz. 
 But, though feveral very learned men have 
 embraced this opinion, it appears to me a 
 meer hypothecs without foundation. The 
 only ground of it is a jexvifi account of 
 their Feafts and Fafts, in which that day is 
 noted as aFeaft ; becaufe on it Herod died. 
 But (a) this book appears to be of no au- 
 thority. 
 
 (a) SecI'f»it6.Annote.Mattb ii. 23 Ltmy Apparat. Chronol. 
 Fart. i. cap. 9. §. 5. 
 
 C c 3 §. II. That 
 
39 o ATTEKVIX. 
 
 $.11. That Herod died but a fhort 
 time before Tome one of the jewijh Paff- 
 overs, is evident from (a) Jofephus. If 
 we re j eft entirely his authority, it is in vain 
 to talk about the time of Herod's death. 
 ^Arch elans kept a Paffover in Judea after 
 his father's death, before he went to Rome 5 
 which he would not have done, if it had 
 not been near. He had good reafon to 
 haften to Rome. He had many enemies. 
 Herod Antipas had been appointed his fa- 
 ther's fucceifor in a former Will, and he pre- 
 tended that Will ought to take place. When 
 the Jews at the Temple made their de- 
 mands of Archdcms , he gave them fair 
 words, that they might not make any di~ 
 fturbance and retard his journey (b\ he 
 being in haft to go to Rome. This haft is 
 expreffed by Jofephus in the JVar, and in 
 the ^Antiquities in very ftrong terms. Ar. 
 chelaus 7 in his way to Rome, at Cejarea, 
 met Sabtnus the Emperour's Procurator in 
 
 (a) D-: Bell. h..ci. Jnt'tq 17. C 9. 
 
 (b) IV : <- -c,^o)\vnro ft 'A(%iAoc&', kitay^ro j tw etffiuvxv 
 psro £ nip tw sfyJlbv Ixiihcoc, k. A. DeBell. z. c. 1. §. 3. Tyroic 
 
 tAfifclhoWq, XeUKSg OilVusS Qh$W 7V\V 'ogl/j^V OtVTW, iffSViVSj £%6)V 
 TB» £7Tl Y60f/tVl$ OCcill ayJicJ^ 9FgOX8l[it6V1lV UVTM TCtfcOS, Sfil 7TSPt(TX0- 
 
 nwrsi T Sftpnw Ta K-Muraei. Antiq. 17. c.p. §.i. 
 
 Syria. 
 
ATT EWDIX. 391 
 
 Syria, who was going {a) in all haft to Je- 
 rufalem to fccure Herod's treafurc for c//«- 
 guflus. By help of the interceffions of Va- 
 rus, prefident of Syria ("who was then 
 like wife at Ce fared) Archelatis prevailed up- 
 on Sabinus to promife, that he would not 
 proceed any farther. But notwithstanding 
 that, when Archelaus was gone away, he 
 went up to Jerufalem -, and there ordered 
 all things, according to his own will and 
 pleafurc. This was all managed without 
 any orders from Rome. If Herod had been 
 dead two or three months, they would have 
 had directions from thence upon this matter. 
 Nay, if Herod had been dead one month, 
 this vigilant Procurator would have been at 
 Jerufalem before now. I think this has not 
 been infilled on by any before. But I take it 
 to be a demonftration, that, according to 
 Jofphus, Herod's death happened but a 
 very fhort fpace before fome Pafiover. 
 
 §\ III. That Herod died a little before 
 the PalTover A. U. 750* Jul. year 42, is 
 argued in this manner. His d idem per had 
 made great progrefie before the pulling down 
 
 (a) 'XieeatrtaQu et[' cv Kxis-xeux. rot 'Aex&ccov Z«e/3!»o$, 
 
 fjuivoc, i7rV (pv^ctKy r 'Hoa}# y^jylr m . Antiq. ibid, §. 3. vid.cC 
 Pe B, ibid, £.£•$.$. 
 
 Cc 4 the 
 
'&% ATT EH 2) / X 
 
 the Golden Eagle at the Temple. The 
 jewijh Rabbies excited their Scholars to this 
 a&ion, News being brought that Herod 
 was (d) dying, as it is in the War •> (b) 
 dead, as it is in the Antiquities . Thefe 
 Rabbies were taken up and carried to Je- 
 richo, where Herod was. A council was 
 called, and they were tried, Herod was fo 
 ill that he could not ftand, and notwith- 
 ftanding the new ftrength (c) which rage 
 gave him upon this occafion he was carried 
 (d) to the council in a chair. Soon after this 
 thefe Rabbies were burnt to death, and that 
 very (e) night there was an eclipfe of the 
 moon. This eclipfe, according toaftrono- 
 mical computations, happened (f) the 13 th 
 March, A. U. 750. After this, Herod 
 grew worfe and worfe. It is plain, he could 
 not live long. The Paffovcr (g) of this 
 year happened the nth of JpriL From 
 
 (0) A^.p^/ff-^ «) 6v>i<rxtiv 6 /Zc,<rtXstj$. deBell. I.e. 33. §.1, 
 
 Aoy©-' he, kvT%r? tsQvccvxi, (pecc'Can T ficcrtXict, J^ <rVVi7TfCtTTS to7$ 
 <rc<ptT&S<:. Antiq. I7 ? c.6. §. ^. (c) 'Exi txto.i; 6 ficc<riAiii>; y 
 
 skxavc-Uv, x, A. de Bell 1. C. 33. §. 4. (d) Kcc] 
 
 7rcif£Cyn , oyjivuy > l\ptv.\wik<ru.e > !<§ to clvtq Qi&Tpov Izl kam^'lis 
 Kiip&oc, ft^vrnfjulec & won. Antiq. ibid. {?) &al ij 
 
 fihm 3 rjj uvrvi wktI i%ifax& p ibid. §. 4. (/) Petav. 
 
 PoOrj, Temp. 1. x i. c. 1. ( s ) Vid. ytny App. £hron.p.58, 
 
 the 
 
s4T T E H T) I X. 395 
 
 the 1 3th of March to the i ith of April is a 
 fufficicnt fpacc of time for all that Jofephui 
 has related concerning Herod s illncflc, his 
 fettling his affairs, the execution of Jnti* 
 pater, Herod's death and funeral 5 which arc 
 the things placed between the Ecliple and 
 Arckelauss coming to Jerufalem at the 
 Paflbvcr. 
 
 In the JVar, (a) Jofephus fays that Ar- 
 chelaus was banifhed in the ninth year of his 
 reign: In the Antiquities, that he was ac. 
 cufed before Auguftus by the Jews and 
 Samaritans in the (b) tenth year of his 
 government. In his o'jun life Jofephus 
 fays, that his father was born in the (c) tenth 
 year of Arche/aus's reign. From whence 
 one would be apt to conclude, that Arche^ 
 laus reigned nine years compleat ,• and that 
 the tenth year was current, when he was ba. 
 nifhed. T>io (d) places Jrchelaus's banifh- 
 ment in the 7 5 9th year of Rome. If He- 
 rod did not die till the beginning of A. U- 
 
 (a) Era t7}c u etpxw vnetret QvyoioiviTcci fjuiv 11$ Jllmxv. de B. I. Z- 
 C. 7. § v (h Aixut? j *«' "?*$ ct'xfis 'Ao^Xoca t ci 
 
 VacoToi y,x.Tr l -/opz(Ttv ocvrS tVi Kcn<rcip(& j . J. 17. c. 1 5. l m 
 
 (c) Kcci [ylviTxi] MurClxs fiaa-ttevoT®-' 'Ao%£Xu% to ^tKurcy 
 §. 1. (d) O, T£ 'Hgafo$ nccXcu<rv:vo<;,—-vzro ru i 
 
 P 5*^7. B. 
 
 75t. the 
 
394 A P T E NT) I X. 
 
 751, the ninth year of Archelaush reign 
 could not be completed in the 7 5 9th year 
 of Rome. But if Herod be fuppofed to 
 have died the beginning of A.U. 750? J°f e " 
 fhus and T>io agree. Moreover, Jojep&us 
 jays that (a) Cyrenius feifcd Archelaus's 
 eftate, and finiflied the Affeflcmcntin Judea 
 in the thirty feventh year after the defeat 
 of Antony at Aciium by Cefar Auguftus. 
 The viftory at Aiiiurn was obtained the 2d- 
 Septemb. A. U. 72?. Therefore the 37th 
 year from it begins 2d. Sept. A. U. 7^9^ 
 and ends 2d. Sept. 760. Supposing then, 
 that Herod died the beginning of A. U. 
 750, there is in this particular alfo a very 
 good harmony between Jojcphus and <Dio. 
 There is however one great difficulty 
 attending this opinion. For Jofephus has 
 faid in two places, that Herod reigned thir- 
 ty four years after the death of (b) Antigo- 
 nus 5 and thirty fiven years after he was 
 
 (a~) Ky^)W©» 'j rot, 'AgfciXaa ^yjecra &hn£oyjtv(&' «<?V, j£ 
 *r "bhttTkyjlitricov %ipa<; 1%'dQ-ocv t ca i-yivovro Tgia.Ko$co y^j tfi&cyju> 
 Z7U fjutToc T? t v 'Avravia cv 'Aktim yiTTav \Z3~o ¥.ui(rc.e<^" Antics* 
 1. l8. C.2. §. I. 
 
 (£) — TzXivtu. fixcihivcrecs u<p' 8 /* "tertKTzivcti; 'Avrlyovev *-- 
 
 Papalm kxi^ily^vi ficuriteUy tnTot. ^ Tgla,KovT<x, % de B. J. 1. I, 
 
 cult. §. 8. vid. 6v Amiq. 17. c. 8. § s. 
 
 declared 
 
ATTEHDIX. w 
 
 declared King by the Roman Senate. And 
 he places this declaration of {a) the Senate 
 in A. U. 714, the death of (b) Antigonus 
 in the year 717. If indeed at the beginning 
 of A. U. 750, Herod had reigned thirty- 
 fix years compleat from the firft date of his 
 reign, and thirty three from the later 5 fo 
 that the 37th of the one epocha, and the 
 34th of the other were to be current at the 
 time of his death ; then Herod might be 
 faid not improperly to have reigned, with 
 refpeft to the one, thirty feven years, and 
 to the other, thirty four. It is fuppofed by 
 fome learned men that Herod was declared 
 King by the Senate, (c) toward the very 
 end of the year 714, by others (d) the 
 later end of OElober or beginning of No- 
 vember, by others ( e) in September or 0£to. 
 ber y by others (/) about the middle oijuly, 
 that year. But then, at the beginning of 
 the year 750, Herod could not have reigned 
 from this date thirty fix years compleat, nor 
 was the 37th year current. Herod took Je- 
 
 (a) Antiq. 14. c. 14 §. 5. JeB. 1. c. 14- §. 4. (b) Antifc 
 14. c. ult. §. 4. (c) Alix de J. C. Anno 8c menfc nataii. 
 
 p.7y- ('0 Bafnage Ann. Polit, E. Vol. I. p. 17. n. \6 m 
 
 (e) Norif. Cenot. Pif p. 1 39. V*gi Aftar. p. 80. {f) H htfloris 
 fiort view. p. i^o. 
 
 rufafcm 
 
39^ AT ? E N'b I X. 
 
 rufalem as fome (a) think in September 
 A. U. 717, others (£), about the end of 
 June, Archbifhop Ufloer (V), on the firft: 
 of January this year. If the Archbifhop's 
 fuppofition could be allowed, we fnould have 
 here no difficulty. But if any of the others 
 are followed, then from this date of Herod's 
 reign, viz. the taking of Jerufaletn, or 
 the death of ^Antigonus (which are ail 
 one) to the beginning of the year 750, we 
 have not quite thirty three years compleat, 
 nor is the thirty fourth current. 
 
 I n anfwer to this difficulty it is faid (d) 
 by learned men, that the years of the jewzjb 
 Kings were computed from the beginning 
 of the Month Nifan, which ufually anfwers 
 pretty near to our March. Infomuch 
 that, if a King began to reign in any part of 
 the year before, even in February, another 
 year of his reign would begin with Nifan , 
 that is, March. So Jofephus relates, that 
 Jerufalem was taken (e) by Tompey when 
 
 (a) Alix ubi fupra. p. 117. (b) Whi(lon\h\d. p.i^i. 
 
 B-fiwge ibid-p. 30. n. 9. (c) Annals. P.J. 4677. (V/JInde 
 etiam anni regum Hebraeorum fupputabantur, ita ut fi quis 
 Rex in Adar regnaret, a Nifan alter annus imperii ejus inciperet, 
 Rdnnd. Antiq.Heb.de Temporib. facris, c. 1. init. \id,&K>p- 
 ler. de ann. natal. J. C. cap. 7. P- 4^- (*) <dntie[. 14. 
 
 c,4- $.3. 
 
 Antony 
 
AT T E NT) I X. 397 
 
 Antony and Cicero were Conluls, by 
 Herod, when M. Agripfa and Caninius 
 Callus were confuls, on the very anniverfary 
 of the fame calamity from Pompey, it 
 having been taken by him on the fame (a) 
 day twenty ftven years before : Though 
 there were but twenty fix years compleat 
 between thefe two events. And from the 
 taking of Jerufalem by Herod to its dc 
 ftru&ion by Titus, Jofephus computes (J?) 
 one hundred and feven years, though it was 
 but one hundred and fix compleat. But, in my 
 opinion, thefe inftances are not home to 
 the point. For in them the year named is 
 current. Whereas, in the cafe before us it 
 is not fo. If Herod died in the beginning 
 of the year 750, the thirty third and thirty 
 fixth years of his reign were not compleat. 
 §. IV. Other (c ) learned men fup- 
 pofe that Herod died a fhort time before the 
 PafTover A. U. 751. This they argue from 
 the number of years affigned to Herod*s reign 
 in the places above mentioned. They do 
 not allow the truth of the Talmudical ac- 
 count of computing the Reigns of the jewifh 
 
 (a) Ibid. c. 1 6. §. 4. (b) Ibid. 20. c. p, vid. Kepler 
 
 'bid. {() Vic 4 . Lamy Appar. Chror. Part i. c. ix. Baf- 
 
 nage Anna!. Pol. Ecc, Vol.i. p if6. n,v. 
 
 Kingc 
 
3P8 AVTENTHX. 
 
 Kings fromche beginning of Nifan or from 
 the Pafifover. If Jofephus had followed 
 fuch a kind of computation, he would have 
 given forne hint of it in his books writ in 
 the Greek language and for the inftru&ion of 
 ftrangers. They fay alfo, that Herod's was 
 a flow lingring diftemper ; and that it is not 
 likely he fhould die fo foon after the exe- 
 cution of the Rabbies and their accomplices, 
 as is fuppofed by the Patrons of the former 
 opinion. Laftly, they obferve the (a) a- 
 greement of all the other numbers in Jofe- 
 fhm concerning the dates of the reign of 
 Archelaus and other fons of Herod. 
 
 This opinion however labours under 
 feveral very great difficulties. ^Dio's account 
 of the removal of Archelaus is entirely 
 reje&ed. But to do this (J?) is not very rea- 
 fonable. Farther, the fupporters of this 
 opinion muft allow of the Eclipfe above- 
 mentioned 5 or they muft fay it was no real 
 eclipfe, but only fome obfcurity that was 
 taken tor an Eclipfe. If they allow the 
 Eclipfe, then Herod muft have lived a year 
 
 (a) Note, the learned men, whoefpoufe the former opinion, 
 fuppofe alfo that Jofcpbus's numbers in all other places agree 
 with them. (6) Vid.Ncrif. Cenot.ftly. 147. 
 
 after 
 
ATTEND! X. 
 
 after the execution of the Rabbies, provided 
 he died (a) but a few days before the Pad- 
 over A. U. 751* But it is incredible that 
 Herod fhould live fo long, confidcring the 
 defcription Jofephus gives of the diftemper. 
 Befides, it is evident that the Mourning of 
 the jewifi people for the Rabbies, at the Pall- 
 over next after Herod's death, was (J?) very 
 frefh, which it could not have been, if the 
 Rabbies had been dead above a year before. 
 Moreover, it is evident, that Herod's Am- 
 bafladors were lent away to Rome to know 
 x_Auga[lus's plealure concerning exfe/i- 
 pater, feme time {c) before the difturbance 
 at the Temple, when the Golden Eagle was 
 taken down. And it is very plain, that 
 Herod lived not (d) many days after the ar- 
 rival of the AmbafTadors. So that according 
 to this opinion thefe Ambafladors muft have 
 fpent above a year in their journey from Judea 
 
 (a) Quae aptis temporibustribui non pofTjnt..nifi haec mors 
 co ntigerit jam aliquibus menfibus promoto Anno U. C. 75-1, in 
 quo comprobavimus mortuum fuifle Herodcm. Quoquo autem 
 anno mortuus fit, non multis ante pascha diebus mors ilia 
 obtigit,utteftaturJofephus,cui fidem iidhibemus.Lawy ubifupra.U 
 
 (6) 'H* 3 TO 7Tiv6(^ &% lSGT£<?C&Xyj2V0V, 0L?&' OlffiGfyoit ^ICITTPU- 
 
 cloi> ^ @gfiv'& j iymtev7<&' , xoxsrot n Trip^avTEs 'oXw rwiroXw. 
 deB. z. c.i. §.a. vid. & Antiq. 17. c.9. §. 1. (c) Dd 
 
 B.i. c 32. fin. Antiq. 17. c. ?. fin. (</) DeD. ibid.c. 32. 
 
 §. 7, 8. Antiq. ibid. c. 7. 8c c. 8.§. 1. 
 
 t3 
 
 3 
 
 99 
 
4oo ATTEWDIX. 
 
 to Rome and back again, though they were 
 fent upon very preffing bufincfle, which is 
 alfo incredible. Or they rriuft reject the 
 account of the Eclipfe and fay, as Father 
 Lamy(a) does, that it was only apalencffe 
 or obicurity which was no real Eclipfe of 
 the Moon i which, I believe, will appear 
 very unreafonable to all Aftronomers. 
 
 These are the three principal opinions 
 concerning the time of Herod's death. And 
 thek the main arguments for, and objections 
 againft them. I prefume it appears to the read- 
 er from particulars allcdged from Jofephuszni 
 ^Dhy That Herod did not die before the year 
 750, nor furvive the year 751 : And that he 
 died a fhort time before xhcjewifh Paffover, of 
 one of thefc years.lt follows that if Herod died 
 in 750, he died three years and nine months 
 before the Vulgar Chriftian ^Era, which com- 
 mences January 1. A. U. 754. If at the 
 time abovementioned in the year 751, then 
 he died about two years and nine months be- 
 fore the faid ^Era. Which is the truth I dare 
 not determine. 
 
 (a) Ubi fupra. §.d. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
INDEX 
 
 T O T H E 
 
 Second Volume. 
 
 M E, ajevijh wo- 
 | man pat to death at 
 
 p. 211. 
 
 l\\ AUrich (Dr.) com- 
 mended, 275. 
 Ant/pater, eldeft Son 
 of Herod the Great, concern'd 
 in the murder cf the infants at 
 Bethlehem, p. 206. His ddign 
 topoyfcnhis father, zio, 2:1, 
 212. The time of his laft jour- 
 ney to Rome fettled, 218, — 
 22;. 
 
 'A*»yp*0i». The meaning of this 
 word, p. 1 19, 120, 
 
 Afofoment, the nature of a Ro- 
 man AfTeHcment,2,o — jy.Somc- 
 times made in the territories of 
 
 dependent King?, 5-8, — 6f. 
 That there was one made in 
 Judea at the time of oar Sa- 
 viour's birth, 6f — ioi. 
 Augujcus, feveral computations 
 of hisreign 9 238. The nature: 
 of this title of Auguftus, 157 . 
 
 B, 
 
 BAroniits, his miftake of Plim'e, 
 6. Thought Cyren'mt was 
 twice Governour of S/rla, 113. 
 
 Bafrage (of FlottemanviUe) his 
 Solution concerning the diffe- 
 rent names of Herodias's firft 
 husband. 3 1 8. 
 
 B.itricides, his peculiar opinion 
 concerning Simon the j Lift, 370. 
 
 Beza, his foluuon concerning. 
 Cjrer/tuSs tax, 1/3, <J»g, 
 
 Dd 
 
 Caiaphjt 
 
INDEX, 
 
 c. 
 
 CAiapkAs, called Jofepb by the 
 hiftorian Jofephus, 332. 
 
 C'i'ita {Auguflus'i adopted fon) 
 his journey through Judea, 9 1 . 
 
 Cenfui. See Ajfejfement) 
 
 Clerc. See Le Clerc. 
 
 Cjrmms, the account of his com- 
 ing into Judea afrer the re- 
 moval of Archelaus, 103. His 
 true name, 1 1 o. His chara&er, 
 15-6, 157. Divers particular 
 folutions of the chief difficulty 
 concerning hisTaxe,i 12 — 1S8. 
 
 E. 
 
 EMperour, this title given to 
 collegues in the Roman Em- 
 P ire > 253. 
 
 E'Afebtus (of Ccfarea) cenfured, 
 186. 
 An Execution made by Herod at 
 Jerusalem, 70, — 73,224, 225. 
 
 FAbatus, Procurator of Au- 
 gustus in Arabia and Judea, 
 
 Ifcfor (Tanquil) commended, 1 1 8, 
 
 C^ 1 Amalirt, the force of his rea- 
 y ibning in favour of the 
 Apoftles, 107,—- no. 
 
 H. 
 
 HErod (the Great) always a 
 dependent tributary prince, 
 53, — 57. reduced to a more 
 ftrift fubjeclionto the Romans^ 
 
 65, e^ Several opinions of 
 learned men concerning the 
 time of his death, 298, and 
 389. &c. 
 
 Herod, (Son of Herod the Great, 
 by the High-Prieft's daughter) 
 hishiftory, 316, &c. 
 
 Henvaert , his interpretation of 
 Luke ii. 2 . 123. 
 
 H'gh-Prieft's Vefimem. See ViteU 
 lias. 
 
 i 
 
 I. 
 
 £#*, the regifters of their fa- 
 milies in being till the de- 
 ftru&ion of Jerusalem, 49. 
 praelifed divorces, both men 
 and women, 320. note D. 
 
 Jefus, the true time of his nati- 
 vity, 229 — 237. The durati- 
 on of his miniftry according to 
 the firft Chrifrian writers, 263, 
 264. The time of his cruci- 
 fixion according to the fame 
 writers, 297* 
 
 Jofepb, on what account he was 
 obliged by Auguftus's decree to 
 enrole himfeif, 47. Why he 
 went to Btthlehem to be enrol- 
 led, > . 48. 
 
 Jjfephus (the jewijh hiftorian} pre- 
 tended to prophecy, 77, 80. 
 was a firm Jew, 8o, — 8i. His 
 paffages concerning a terrible 
 execution at Jerufalem, 70, — 
 73, 224, 225. calls L'n<ia, Au~ 
 guftus's wife, Julia, 331. calls 
 Caiapbas Jofepb, 331. 
 
 K. 
 
 KEpUr, quoted, 77. nctez. 124. 
 293. 
 
 U 
 
INDEX. 
 
 LE Clerc (John) quoted, 124. 
 244, 3 56. commended, i~8. 
 Livia (Auguftus's wife) called Ju- 
 lia, by Jofefhus 9 331. 
 
 M. 
 
 MAry the (BlefTed Virgin) 
 why lhe went to Bethle- 
 hem at the time of the taxi 117, 
 S o. 
 
 N. 
 
 NAthity. See Jefus. 
 Nebuchadnezzar , two 
 computations of his reigns 37. 
 
 Nerva did not refign the empire 
 to Trajan, 261, 2,62 . 
 
 Nicolas (of Damafctts) his cha- 
 racter, and his AmbafTy to Au- 
 guftus, 68, &c. Was very in- 
 timate with He^oJ, 92. mag- 
 nified the fuccefTe of his am- 
 bafly, 2257. 
 
 o 
 
 o. 
 
 Ath, taken by the Jbw, to 
 Cefar and Herod, 71. was 
 the fame thing with St. Luke's 
 enrolment, 74, &c. 
 
 Theroras, enquiries into the oc- 
 cafion of his death, 213. 
 
 Theroras's Wife, mifreprefented by 
 Jofephus, 82, 86. 
 
 Pilate (Pontius,) when he came 
 into Jadea, and when removed, 
 
 273, 281. Objections con- 
 
 fidered, 281 287. Made 
 
 away with himfelf, 287 
 
 Philo, i peaks of four Sons of He- 
 rod living in the time of PiUte, 
 
 3*4. 
 
 Fifo (Lucius) when made pretecl: 
 of Rome, 24' 2 jo. 
 
 Pifo (Vrefident of Syria) his delays? 
 in going to Rome after his re- 
 moval, 284, 285. 
 
 Trefident, this title taken in a ge- 
 neral Senfe, 15-5, 303. 
 
 Prideaux (Dr. Humphry) com- 
 mended. 330. His opinion con- 
 cerning the afleflement at our 
 Saviour's nativity confidered, 
 10. 
 
 Prince, when ufed abfblutely, e- 
 quivalent to Emperour, 252. 
 
 S*Caliger ijofeph) his fenfe of 
 f Luke \\ 2. 160, 167. 
 
 Selden, his opinion concerning the 
 authority of Annas and Caia- 
 pbas, ^ 305, ere. 
 
 Sutdas, his pafTages concerning 
 Auguftus's cenfus. 7, 8. 
 
 T)Agi (Dr. Antony) commended, 
 
 X l|o. 
 
 Tertzontus, his interpretation of 
 L«&«ii. 2. reprefented and con- 
 hdered, 126, — 152. 
 
 Fhxrifces, fix thoufand of them 
 re rule to fwear to Cefar and 
 i/m?</, 7 r , #r. 
 
 TEmple at Jerufalem, that ft 
 had been 46 years in build- 
 ing at the firfl pafibver of our 
 Saviour's miniftry, 288, — 296. 
 Tertullian, iays the Tax at our 
 Saviour's birth was made by 
 Saturninus, 182, 208. com- 
 mit red 
 
INDEX. 
 
 mitted great miftakes in hiftory, 
 
 183, 215. 
 
 Tiberius, two computations of 
 
 the time of his reign, 2 39—.— 
 
 25-6. Objections againH: this 
 
 Supposition, 256,— 264. 
 
 The date of the firft computa- 
 tion, 265* — z6o. A Dilatory 
 Prince, 185, 286. 
 
 U. 
 
 VArus (Sht'wtilius) when he 
 came Prefident into Syria, 
 209. 
 YitelUus (Prefident of Syria) dis- 
 places Pilate, puts the -keeping 
 of the BighPrieft's veftmenc 
 
 into the hands of the yews, 
 and does feveral other things at 
 Jerufdem, 273—2,7? 
 
 W. 
 
 WHiJlon (William) his fuppo- 
 fition that the Jews were 
 enrolled by Herod at the requeft 
 of Auguflus, 45. His folution 
 of a difficulty concerning Cy- 
 r emus' s Tax, 1 1 7-— 1 2 3 . Hi$ 
 opinion concerning the time of 
 Pilate's removal, 28 ^--287. 
 concerning the time of Herod's 
 death, considered, 389. 
 Whitby his interpretation of Luke 
 ii.i. iz< f3 &c. 
 
CO 
 
 c 9 
 
 oo 
 
 CO 
 
 06" 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 Of 
 
 ©o 
 
 A Catalogue of BOOKS Printed for and 
 Sold by A. Bettejworth, at the Red-Lion iii 
 ¥ater-NofteY-Row\ 
 
 A lo 5. <J 
 
 ATalantis, 4 Vol. nvcs. 
 Apuleius's Golden Afs, 2 Vol. i2ves. 
 Adas Manuale: OiyA Seer of fmall Maps. By Moll. 8vo. 
 Athenian Oracle, now in the Prefs, Svo. 
 A&a Regia : Or, An Abridgment of Mr. Rymer's Fcedera. Pub 
 
 linYd Monthly, at 1 s. each. 
 Apollo's Feaft, izves. co 01 00 
 
 Art of Pleafing in Converfation, in French and Englifh. By Car- £. 
 
 dinal Richlieu. i2ves. S °° 
 
 Agreeable Variety, 8vo.- 
 Art of Thinking. Tianflated by Ozell. i2ves. 
 Arabian Nights Entertainment, Complear, 6 Vol. izyqs- 
 Abrjdgment Statutes, 6 Vol. 8vo. 
 Addifon's Travels, i2ves. 
 
 Works, 3 Vol. i2ves. 
 Works, 4 Vol. 4x0. 
 Aecomplifh'd Conveyancer, 3 Vol. 8vo. 
 
 B 
 
 "DRidgman's Conveyancer, Folio. 
 
 - Biihop Blackhall's Works, 2 VoL Folio. 
 
 Biihop Burner on the Thirty nine Articles, Folio. 
 
 Abridgment of his Hiftory of the Reformation, 3 Vol. 
 i2ves. 
 Dr. Barrow's Works, 2 Vol. Fol. 
 Book of Homiles, Folio, 1726. 
 Boyce on the Thirty nine Articles, Folio. 
 Burnet's Theory of the Earth, 2 Vol. tivo. 
 Dr. Bates Works, Folio, 1724. 
 
 Burnec's (Dr. Thomas,) Sermons at Boyle's Lectures, for the Years 
 J724, 172/, 2 Vol. 
 
 ElTay upon Government, 8vo. 
 Scripture Trinity, 8vo. 
 Blackmore's ('Sir Richard) Eflays, 2 Vol. 8vo. 
 
 Creation, a Poem, i2Ves. 
 Redemption, a Poem; being a Supple 
 menc to the Creation, 8vo. 
 Buchanan's Hiftory of Scotland, 2 Vol. Engliih, with curious £- 
 
 Cuts, 8vo. 
 Boyer's Fienchand Englifh Dictionary, 8vo. 
 
 Telemachus, 2 Vol. lives. 
 Bailey's Etymological Englifls Dictionary 
 
 Transition of Erafmus Colloquies. 
 Bruyere's Works, 2 Vol. Tranllated horn the French, 8vo. 
 Betterton's Life with the Amorous Widow. 
 Behn's Novels, 2 Vol. iaves. 
 
 Plays, 4 Vol. I2ves. 
 Boerhavc's Aphorifms, Tianflated into Englifh, 8vo. 
 Mrs. Barker's Novels, 2 Vol. i2Ves. 
 
 Patchwork Screen, 2 Vol. i2ves. 
 Britiih Apollo, 3 Vol. i2Ves. containing two Thoufand Anfwei's to 
 Curious QueJtions in molt Arts and Sciences, iivct. 
 
 A 
 
 c 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 oS 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 06* 
 
 00 
 
 IJ 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 oo 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 18 
 
 00 
 
 • I 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 12 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 12 
 
 00 
 
 ~l 00 
 
 02 
 
 OQ 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 12 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OQ 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 12 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 O/ 
 
 06 
 
 £ 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 CI 
 
 co- 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 co 
 
 00 
 
 II 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 $ o° 
 > 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 00 
 
 II 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 07 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 °S 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 c 7 
 
 00 
 
 oo 
 
 9J 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 06* 
 
 00 
 
 °J 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 12 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 06 
 
 30 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 OO 
 
 °s 
 
 00 
 
 }„0 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 
 Britiih 
 
F- 2 3. 
 
 fcritilh Compendium i Containing the Defcents of the Engliih,") 
 Scotch, and Irifh Nobility, with their Arms curioufly Engra- r 
 ven, 3 Vols. i2ves. J 
 
 Builders Dictionary, 8vo. 
 Dr. Brown of Cold Baths. laves. 
 B^ileau's Art of Poetry, 4 Canto's, i2ves. 
 
 Lutrin : An Heroi-Comical Poem. 
 BulftroJe ( Whit lock) Effays, 8vo. 
 Bridges of Fra&ions, i2ves. 
 
 Bradley's New Improvements in Planting and Gardening, 8vo. 
 Byihe's Art of Poetry^ 2 Vol. 
 
 Blackmore's Ecclefiaftical Antiquity, abridg'd from Bingham,a Vol. 
 Ball's Aftrology improv'd '" 
 
 Btukett of the New Teftament, Folio. * 
 
 Beveridge's Piivare Thoughts, 8vo. 
 Ditto, lives. 
 Prayer, 8vo. 
 Ditto, i2ves. 
 Blackmore on Confumptions, 8vo. 
 on the Spleen 
 
 on the Gout and Rheumatifm 
 on the Vapours. 
 Binoham's Antiquities, 2 Vols. Folio. 
 Brown (Tho .) Works, j Vols, izves. 
 Biihop's Sermons at Lady Moyer's Leaure, 8vo. 
 Baynard of fcot and Cold Baths, 8vo. 
 
 C 
 
 CAffandra : A fam'd Romance, j Vols. i2ves 
 Cook of Forefb Trees, 8vo. 
 Bi lop Cumberland, De Legibus Naturae, 8"vo. 
 Cato's Letters, + Vols. laves 
 Cave's Primitive Chnfhanity, 8vo. 
 Calamy's (Benj.) Sermons, 8vo 
 Clark's Body of Divinity, 2 Vol. 8vo. 
 Cocker's Englii-hDiaionarySvo. 
 
 Decimal Anthmetick, 8vo. 
 Countefs of Morcon's Devotions 24s. 
 • n, Comber's Companion to the Altar, 8vo. < 
 
 Sr-ftian Pattern, Trauflated from the Latin of Tho. a Kempis.a^. 
 Culpeper'sEn R lilhPhyficianEnlarg'd 
 r Y Midwife, i2ves. 
 
 Difpenfatory, iaves. 
 ^nrtiisr Tranilated horn the Italian. 
 Cap of Gray Hairs for a Green Head, 8vo. 
 Croxall's^fop's Fables, raves. 
 rox's Hiftory of Carohna, Svo. 
 
 Crufo's Lite abridg'd, in a neat Pocket Volume, i2ves. 
 clmbray's Private Thoughts upon Religion laves. 
 Cornelius Nepos, EnglinYd by feveral Hands, lives. 
 
 S^S^-he^t,nd Altar, rave, 
 
 C h v i deVaudray, a Novel, lives. 
 
 JYO. 
 
 1. 
 
 s. 
 
 <*. 
 
 01 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 ob 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 °* 
 
 o5 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 II 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 06 
 
 00 ' 
 
 03 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 02 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 12 
 
 0$ 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 15 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 05 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 .00 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 06 
 
 £00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 
 Clark's 
 
en 
 
 Clark's Anfwer to the Religion of Nature delineated, 8vo. 
 
 Di to, againft Hutrhinfon's Ideas of B.aury, 8vo. 
 Clarendon's (Lord) Fiftory of rhc Pebcllion, 6 Vols. Svo. 
 Cafes again (t the -DifTenters, 3 Vols. 8vo. 
 Clark, (Dr. Samuel,) on the Artribures, 8vo. 
 
 Seventeen Sermons at Sc. James's, 8vo. 
 
 on the Gofpels, 2 Vols. 8vo." 
 Cheyne (Dr.) on Health and Long Lite, 8vo. 
 Congreve's Plays and Poems, ^Vols. izves. 
 Critical riiltory of England, 2 Vols. 870* 
 Chefelden's Anatomy, 8vo. 
 Cambden's Britannia 2 Vols. Folio. 
 Chmches no Chavnel Houfes, proving the Indecency of Burying in 
 
 Churches and Church-Yarns. 
 Carcafe's Bo jk of Rates. Folio 1726. 
 Comical Hiltory of Francion, 2 Vols. t2ves. 
 Chambers's Dictionary ot ^rts and Sciences, 2 Vols. Folio. 
 Chillipgworth's W rks, Folio, 1726". 
 Chandler (Blfl op) Defence ot Chrftianity, 8vo» 
 Collier's Sacred Interpreter, 2 Vol. 8vo. 
 Cambray ot the Being and Existence of God, laves. 
 Clarendon and Whitlock compared, 8vo. 
 Collier's Antoninus, 8vo. 
 
 1. 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 05 
 
 01 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 IS 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 II 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 o5 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 II 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 10 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 
 01 
 
 or 
 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 12 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 °J 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 °s 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 DOtmt's Civil Law in its Natural Order, Tranilated by Dr. ? 
 Strahan, 2 Vols. Fol. S Z 
 
 Dupin's Me hod of Studying Divinity, 8vo. 
 Dionis's Midwirry, Englifh, 8vo. 
 Devout Chriftian's Companion, 2 Volsv i2ves. 
 Dacicr's Abridameat ot Plato's Works. Tranflated from the ^L 
 French, 2 Vols. i2ves. 3 
 
 Dreiincourc of Deach, Svo. 
 
 DicHonarium RuhVtcum &Urbanicum: Or,ADi£Uonary of Country £. 
 Affairs, 2 Vols. 8vo. 3 
 
 Defoe's orks, 2 Vols. 8vo. 
 Dr-exeliud's Hourly Companion, i2ves. 
 Derham's Phyfuo-Theology, 8vo. 
 A tiro-Theology, 8vo. 
 Dupin's Hiftory of the Church, abridg'd, in four neat Pocket- 7 
 Volumes, i2ves. $ 
 
 Dryden's Plays, in 5 Vols. i2ves. 
 
 Mlfceilanies, 6VAs. i2ves. 
 Virgil, with Cuts, 3 Vols, i zves. 
 Juvenal, lives. 
 Fables. 
 Ditton, on the Refurrection, 8vo. 
 
 on Fluids, 8vo. 
 Defence of the Female Sex. 
 
 Dalton's Country Juftice, with large Additions, by W. Nelfon, ? 
 Efq; Folio, 171& 3 
 
 Danois's Tales ot the Fairies, 3 Vol. I2ves< 
 Di&ionary of all Religions, 8vo. 
 Degolls on Worms, Svo- 
 Du&or Hiftoricus, ..a Vo.s. 8vo» 
 
 0i 05 
 
 00 
 
 oj- 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 05 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 0/ 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 oy 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 oa 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 • 00 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 oo 
 
 00 
 
 18 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 II 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 05 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 lot 
 
 05 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 07 
 
 06 
 
 80 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 Otf 
 
 A 2 
 
 R»filand*« 
 
[43 
 
 E 
 
 oo 
 
 OI 
 
 vC 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 oo 
 
 OI 
 
 00 
 
 oo 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 01 
 
 16 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 oo 
 
 °9 
 
 00 
 
 oo 
 
 °3 
 
 06 
 
 oo 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 oo 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 OI 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 oo 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 oo 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 oo 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 oo 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 oo 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 Na.land's Intereft : Or, The Gentleman and Farmer's Friend. 
 
 Engliih Liberties : Or, The Free-born Subjects Inheritance. 
 By W. Nelfon, Efqj 
 Effay on the Tranfmutation of the Blood, Svo. 
 Eutropius, in Ufum Delphini, 8vo. 
 Echard's Hiftory of England, Folio. 
 Roman Hiftory, 5 Vols. Svo. 
 Ecclehaftical Hiftory, 2 Vols. 8vo. 
 Gazetteer, in Two Parts, i2ves. 
 Terence, i2ves. 
 Hiftory of the Revolution, Svo. 
 Eufebius's Ecclefiaftical Hiftory, Englifli, Folio. 
 Etheridge's Plays, i2ves. 
 Englifh Expofitor, i2ves. 
 Echard's (Dr.) Works, 8vo. 
 England's Black Tribunal, i2ves. 
 Everard's Gauging, i2ves. 
 Eikon Bafilike : To which is added, The Life of King Charles "> 
 
 the Firft, by Perinchief. $ °° °* ° 6 
 
 F 
 
 FLavell's Works, 2 Vol. Folio. 
 Husbandry Spiritualiz-'d, I2ves. 
 Navigation Spiritualiz'd, 8vo. 
 Bifhop Fleetwood's Relative Duties, 8vo. 
 Fiiher's Aiithmetick, I2ves. 
 Farrier's and Horfeman's Dictionary, 8vo. 
 Familiar Letters of Love and Gallantry, in Two neat Pocket 
 
 Volumes, i2ves. 
 Florus in Ufum Delphini, 8vo. 
 
 Frauds of the Romi/h Priefts and Monks, in Two Volumes, lives. 
 Fable of the Bees, 8vo. 
 Fiiend's Hiftory of Phyfick, 2 Vols. Svo. 
 Freeholder, I2ves. 
 Fuller's Pharmacopoeia Extemporanea, lives. 
 
 The fame in Englilh, Svo. 
 Fidde's Sermons, Folio. 
 Furquhar's Plays and Poems, 2 Vols. i2ves. 
 
 G 
 
 Goodman's (DrJ Penitent pardoned, Svo. 
 Winter Evening Conference, Svo. 
 Old Religion, j rves. 
 Glanvill of Witches, 1726. Svo. 
 Gordon's (Patrick) Geographical Grammar, 8vo. 
 
 (George) Intridukion to Geography, Aftronomy, Dyal- ~> 
 
 ling, and Chronology, 8vo. 17-6. 3 
 
 Gerhard's Meditations. By Rowell. °° °3 °° 
 
 Ditto, fmall Edition. °° OI °° 
 
 Gentleman Angler, laves. °° OI ° 6 
 
 Gaftrell's Chriftian Inftitutes, I2ves. 0O ° 2 °® 
 
 Gentleman Inftrufted, Svo. °° ° 2 ° 6 
 
 Guiilim's Difplay of Heraldry, Folio. °z 0i °o 
 
 Gentleman Jockey, 8vo. °° OI 0< * 
 
 Gibfon's Farrier's Gui.'e, Svo. ™ °S °° 
 
 Farmer's rifpenfatory, Svo. °° °+ °J 
 
 Method of Dieting Horfes, 8vo. ®° °3 of 
 
 ■ Gay s 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00- 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04, 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 oC 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00- 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 06 
 
 bo 
 
 *7 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 o5 
 
 00 
 
 * 00 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
[ 5] 
 
 Gay's Paftorals, 
 
 Gedde's Tracts, 3 Vols. 8vo. 
 
 Guardian, 2 Vols. i2Ves. 
 
 Gardner's Ditoonary, 2 Vols. I2ves. 
 
 Gibfon's Anatomy of Human Bodies, Svo. 
 
 HENRY, (Matthew) on the Bible, 6 Vol's. 
 Works, Colle&ed into One Volume. 
 Hooker's Ecclefuftical Polity, 17^4, Folio. 
 Horneck's (Dr.> Crucified Jefus, 8vo. 
 
 on Coiifiueration, 8vo. 
 Beft Exercife, 8vo. 
 Fire of the Altar, i2ves. 
 Handley's Mechanical Effays on the Animal Oeconomy, 8vo. 
 
 Colloquia Chirurgica: Or,TheWholeArt of Surgery ,Svo. 
 Hawney's Trigonometry, 8vo. 
 
 Compleat Meafurer. 1 2ves. 
 Hiftory of England, 4 Vols. 8vo. With the Heads of all the 
 
 Kings and Queens curioufly Engrav'd. 
 Howell's (Lawrence; Hiltory of the Bible, 3 Vols. With ijq 
 
 Copper Plates, 3 Vols. 8vo. 
 Howell's (James) Familiar Letters, 8vo. 
 Harris's (Dr.) Lexicon Technician, 2 Vols. Folio. 
 Hudibras, in Three Parts ; with a new Sett of Cuts. 
 Hiltory and Prefent State of the Kingdom of France, 2 Vols. lives. 
 Hatton's Pfaltar, i2ves. 
 Howard's Neweft Way of Cookery, i2ves 
 Hiftory of Engliih Martyrs in Queen Mary's Reign, Svo, 
 Hatton's Comes Comercii, 8vo. 
 Hiftory of Hungary, I2ves. 
 
 Hewit's Tables of Intereft, engraven on Copper Plates, lives. 
 Hiftory of Tryals and Attainders, 2 Vols. i2ves. 
 Hutchinfon's Enquiry into our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue, 8vo. 
 Hanover Tales: Or, The Secret Hiftory of Count Fradonia, and 
 
 the Unfortunate Beritia, lives. 
 Henley's Heft her, an Hiftorical Poem 
 Hoiatius in Ufum Delphini, 8*0. 
 Haywood's Novels, 4 Vols. nves. 
 Hook's Experimencs, publilh'd by Derham. 
 Hiltoria Sacra: Or, Hiftory of the Feafts and Fafts of the Church } 
 
 of England. 
 Hope's Compleat Horfeman, Folio. 
 Howard's Plays, lives. 
 
 Hiftory of Herodotus, Engliih'd by Lictjebury, z Vols. 8v0. 
 The Hive : Or, A Collection of Songs, 3 Vols. i2ves. 
 Hiftory of the Devil, 8vo. 
 
 Johnfon's (SamueU Works. Folio. 
 Jones's Poetical Mifcelianies, lives. 
 Jujftinius in Ufum Delphini, 8vo. 
 
 Engliih'd, by Brown, i2ves. 
 Jenks's Devotions on leveral Occafions 
 Juvenalis in Ufum Delphini, 8vo. 
 Jenkins of the Chriftian Religion, 2 Vols. 8vo. 
 Journey through England, 3 Vols. 8vo. 
 
 Inquiry i:>co the Original or our Ideas of Beauty and Virtue a 8v?. 
 
 A 3 
 
 !. 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 18 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OJ 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 12 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 °J 
 
 oS 
 
 06 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 °7 
 
 06 
 
 01 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 CO 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 °s 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OZ 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 o» 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 }o, 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 oj 
 
 00 
 
 02. 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02. 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 0/ 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 >■ 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 0$ 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 06 
 
 £■ 00 
 
 °s 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 02 
 
 l6 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 07 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 °S 
 
 c6 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 o<5 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 O) 
 
 *s 
 
 00 
 
 
 
 04 
 
 b6 
 
 
 Jacknu:.\ 
 
t 
 
 S. 
 
 d. 
 
 oo 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 oo 
 
 °5 
 
 06 
 
 oo 
 
 06 
 
 00. 
 
 oo 
 
 l 5 
 
 00 
 
 oo 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 m 
 
 Jackman de vt Confclentiat, izves. 
 Independent Whig. 
 Ibbot's Sermons at Boyle's Lectures. 
 Jones's Can >u of che New Tcftafhem, 3 Vol*. 
 J urku's Devotions, izves. 
 
 K 
 
 T/ Eakwell's Works, 2 Vols. Folio. 02 00 00 
 
 ■^ M :ft ot his Pieces fingle 
 
 Kind's (BifhopJ nven ions of Men in^rhe Wortfup of God, nves. 
 
 Ken's (Bp.) Crown or Glory the Be- ard of the Righteous, Svo. 
 
 E' p: fition ot -he Church <~aiechifrn. 
 Kennet's Roman Antiquities, 8vo. 
 Kind's Heathen Gods, i2ves. 
 Keiil's lntrodnfcti on to Aftronomy, Englifh, Svo. 
 King, on che Creed, Svo. 
 
 C nftirurions ot the Primitive Church. 
 Kidder, ot the M ffiah, Folio. 
 Key's Practical Mea hirer. 
 Keiil's Introduction to Natural PhiLfophy, 8vo°. 
 
 L 
 
 T OCK's Works, 3 Vols. Folio. 
 *"— ' ot Human Jndentanding, 2 Vol. 
 
 pf Education, lives, 
 of Government, i^ves. 
 Efop's Fables Eng. ana Latin,8vO. 
 Leftrange's J i-phus, Folio. 
 
 flop's Fa bles, 8vo. 
 Erafmus, Svo. 
 Littlebury's Tranflation of Herodotus, 2 Vols. 8vo. 
 Ladies Travels into Spain, 2 Vols. I2ves, 
 Lee's Tragedies, 3 Vols, i2Ves 
 Lives of the Engliih nets, 2 Vol. 
 Leybourn's Dialling, Folio. 
 
 Dialling, abriJg'd and improv'dj, by Wilfon, lives. 00 02 00 
 
 Littleton's Dictionary, E:igliih and Latin. t 00 16 00 
 
 Life of the Count ne Vuievir, i2ves. 00 01 06 
 
 Madam de Beaumont, i2ves. 00 oi 06 
 
 ot Lucinda, lives. 00 01 06 
 
 of Charlotta Dupont, i2ves. 00 02 oo 
 
 Ladies Library, 3 Vols lives. 00 09 00 
 
 Lewis's Origines Hebrseae, 4. Vols. Svo. 01 00 00 
 
 Lire of Signior Rozeili, 2 Vols, with Cuts* 00 op oq 
 
 Lamb's Cookery, Svo. 00 06 00 
 
 Lite ot Oliver Cromwell, 8vo. 0,0 05 06 
 
 Law of Chriftian Perfection, 8vo. . 00 oj 06" 
 
 Love's Surveying, 8vo. 00 03 0$ 
 
 Lucas's Enquiry alter Happinefs, 2 Vols? 00 10 oq 
 
 Practical Christianity. 00 03 06" 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 oj 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 °4 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 02 
 
 J* 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 oo 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 06 
 
 01 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 io 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 05 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 11 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 IJ 
 
 00. 
 
 01 01 00 
 
 M 
 
 MOLL's Compleat Geographer, Folio. 
 Moral Virtue delineated. Tranflatec 
 Monf. Gomberville 
 
 Manton on the 119th Pfalm, 1723. 01 00 00 
 
 Monrfaucon's Travels into Italy, Folio. 00 $8 oq 
 
 Memoirs ot Philip de Comines, 2 Vols. 8v». 00 10 00 
 
 Memoirs 
 
 Moral Virtue delineated." Tranflated from the French of \ QJ 0Q 00 
 
C 7.1 
 
 Memoirs of Anne of Auftria, jVols. J2ves. 
 
 Moyle's Works 2 Vols. 8vo. 
 
 Montaigne's Effays, 3 Vols. 8vo. 
 
 Miffon's Travels over England, 8vo. 
 
 Mauger's French Grammar, 8vo. 
 
 Martial in Ufum Delphini, 8vo. 
 
 Mifcellanea Aurea • Or, Golden Medley. 
 
 Medulla hiftoriae Angiicanae, 8vo. 
 
 Motteaux's Don Quixor, 4. Vol. lives. 
 
 Morgan's Principles of Medicine, 8vo. 
 
 Moreland's Vade Mccum, jvo 
 
 Mailer- Key to Pop.ry, 3 Vols. lives. 
 
 Milbourn's Legacy to the Church or England,zVols. 
 
 Mandey, of Measuring. Svo. 
 
 Maimer's Husbandry^ 2 Vols. Svo. 
 
 Mangey, on the Loru's Prayer, 8vo. 
 
 Mufae Anglicans, Vols. 
 
 Moor (Bi/hop oi Ely) his Sermons, 2 Vols. 8vo. 
 
 N 
 
 "VTIcholls's Conference with a Theift, 2 Vols, with large Addi- 
 
 •*- tions, 8vo. 
 
 New Voyage round the World by a Courfe never fail'd before, Svo. 
 
 Nelfon's (Robert) Works, Abridg'd and Methodized, 2 Vok nves. 
 
 Noble Slaves, a Novel, lives. 
 
 New Mifcellaneous Poems, with Five Love Letters from a Nun 
 
 to a Cavalier, and the Cavalier's Anfwer, in Verfe. 
 Nelfon of the Feafts and Fafts of the Church of England. 
 
 Practice or true Devotion, i2Ves. 
 New Manual of Devotions, in 3 Parts. 
 Nuptial Dialogues and Debates, 2 Vols. nves. 
 Nelfon's Abridgment of the Law, 3 Vols. Folio. 
 
 1. s. 
 
 00 ic 
 
 OO 
 
 DO 
 
 II o,> 
 
 15 00 
 
 00 04. oS 
 
 00 02 00 
 
 00 06 06 
 
 00 04. 00 
 
 00 06 00 
 
 00 10 00 
 
 00 06 00 
 
 00 02 00 
 
 00 09 00 
 
 00 09 00 
 
 00 0/ 00 
 
 oo 09 00 
 
 00 03 06 
 
 00 o? 06 
 
 00 09 00 
 
 •00 
 
 00 
 
 10 00 
 04. c6 
 00 06 00 
 00 
 
 OO 02 
 00 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 0/ 
 00 02 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 03 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 OJ 06 
 
 °4- 10 00 
 
 o ; 
 
 iZanam's Courfe of .the Mathematicks. Done from the French 
 by Dr. Defaguliers, and others, 5 Vols. 8vo. 
 Ovidii Metamorphofes in Ufum Delphini. 
 
 Translated into Englilh Verfe, and publifh'd by Dr. 
 Sewell, 2 Vols. 
 Osborn's Works, x Vols. nves. 
 Oftervald's Caufes of the Corruption of Chriftians. 
 Orleans's Hidory cf the Stuarts, recommended by Echard, Svo. 
 Ovid De Triftibu; in Englilh Verfe 
 
 Ogilby's and Morgan's Pocket Book of the Roads, 8vo. 
 Ovid's Epiftles, Englilh, with Cuts, nves. 
 
 Art of Love, with Cuts, i2ves. 
 Oldham's Works, 2 Vols. nves. 
 
 1 
 
 01 02 06 
 
 00 05 06 
 
 00 oj 06 
 
 00 oj 06 
 
 00 04. 06 
 
 00 04. 06 
 
 00 01 
 
 00 01 
 
 00 03 00 
 
 00 03 00 
 
 00 0/ 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 pHilips's Englilh Dictionary, Folio. 
 
 A ?atrick's(Bp.) Devout Chriftian Inftru&ed, i2Ves, 
 
 Chriilian Sacrifice, i2Ves. 
 
 Menfa Myftica, 8vo. 
 
 Sermons, on Contentment, 8vo. 
 
 Help toYoungCommunicants,24° 
 Patrick's ( Dr.) Pfalms, nves. 
 Potter's (Biihop) Greek Antiquities, 2 Vols. 8vo. 
 Pembroke's Arcadia, 3 Vols, by Sir Philip Sidney, 17 2 j, 
 
 A 4 
 
 01 t)0 CO 
 
 00 03 00 
 
 00 05 00 
 
 00 Oj - 00 
 
 OO Of 00 
 
 00 00 06 
 
 02 
 1 3 
 
 00 
 OO 
 03 
 
 OO 
 Oo 
 06 
 
 PuffenJorf « 
 
[8] 
 
 Puffendorf's Introcfu£lion to the Hiftory of Europe, ^vo. 
 
 Pomfret's Poems, i2ves. 
 
 Plurality of Worlds. Tranflated from the French of Fontenell. 
 
 By Gardner. 
 Poftman robb'd of his Mail : Or, A Collection of Letters, written 
 
 by the beft Wits of the prefent Age, T2Ves. 
 Prior's Poems, 2 Vols, i2ves. 
 Parnell's Poems, 8vo. " 
 Pope's Homer's Iliad, 6Vols. lives, with Cuts. 
 Odiffey, in j Vol. izves. 
 Mifcellauies, 2 Vols. i2Ves. 
 Pvideaux's Connexion of the Old and New Teftament, 4. Vols. §vg. 
 
 Life of Mahjmet, 8vo. 
 Palladio's Architecture, ^to. 
 Pomet's Hiftory cf Dtfuggs, 4J0. 
 Perfian Tales, 3 Vols. izves, 
 
 Patrick's (Bi.iop) Paraphrafe on all the Poetical Books of the 
 Old Teftament. 
 
 Commentary on the Hiftorical Books of the Bible, 
 2 Vols. Folio. 
 Pearfon, on the Cre^, Folio. 
 Pitt's (Rev. Mr.) Poems on ieveral Occafions* 
 
 QUarles's Emblems, lives. 
 ^ Divine Poems, J2ves. 
 
 Oufcen's Clofet open'd, laves. 
 Cniiney's Pharm. Officinalis, 8vo. 
 Lexicon Medicum, Svo. 
 San&orius Aphorifms, 8vo« 
 Quintus Curdus, 2 Vols. Engliih. 
 
 ROW'S Calliposdia, i2ves. 
 Richardfon of Painting, 2 Vols. Zvo. 
 Robinfon (Dr.; on the St nc and Gravel, Svo. 
 
 on Confumpti jus, 8vo. 
 Roval French Grammar. 
 
 Robert's (Capt.) Voyages to the Cape de Verd Iflands 
 Ray's WlCdom of Godwin the Creation. 
 Phyfico-TheologicalDifcourfes,8vo. 
 Ratcliff's Life, i2ves. 
 Religious Philolopher, 2 Vols. 4x0. 
 Refleaions on Ridicule, 2 Vols. 
 Ronayne's Algebra, 8vo. 
 Row's Lucan's Pharfalia, 2 Vols, xzves. 
 Salluft, Englifh 
 
 S 
 
 CEiden's Works, 6 Vols. PubliuYd by Dr. Wilklns 
 ^ Stevens's Englifli and Spaniih Dictionary. 
 Sranhope (Dr. ' on thc E ? iftles and Gofpels, 4. Vols, 
 Sherlock(Dr.)oi Death, 8vo'. 
 
 The fame in i2ves. 
 
 ou Judgment, Svo. 
 
 on a FutureScate,bVo. 
 
 on Providence, Svo. 
 
 of Religious Affembhes, Svo, 
 
 Svo. 
 
 ?. 
 
 s. 
 
 d. 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 r 00 
 
 02 
 
 oS 
 
 c 00 
 
 o3 
 
 o» 
 
 
 c6 
 
 00 
 
 o> 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 18 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 15 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 c6 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 § 00 
 
 18 
 
 00 
 
 }o> 
 
 °S 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 12 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 05 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 0<J 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 c6 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 eo 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 05 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 16 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 ©0 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 o 7 
 
 16 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 02 
 
 CO 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 06. 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04. 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04, 
 
 CO 
 
 Sherlock 8 s 
 
[9] 
 
 Sherlock's ("Dr.) Sermons, 2 Vols. 8vo. 
 Secret Hiltoiy cf Whitehall, 2 Vols. i:ves. 
 Sele£t Novels, 2 Vols, with Cuts, i2ves. 
 Strother's Pharm. Practica, I2ves. 
 Sydenham's (Dr.) Work, Engliih, Svo. 
 Scrivener's Guide, 2 Vol. Svo. 
 Salmon's Family Dictionary, 8vo. 
 Smith's Arc of Painting In Oil, i2ves. 
 Symfon's New Voyage to the Weft Indies. 
 South's Maxims, 8vo. 
 Sylvius de la Bore's Practical Phyfick, 8vo. 
 Salluftius in Ufum D Iphini, cvo. 
 Schrevelii Lexicon, 8vo. 
 Spe&ator, 8 Vols. 
 
 Seneca's Morals. By Sir R. Leftrange, 8vo. 
 Scanhope's(Dr.)Chrifcian Pattern, 8vo. 
 
 Parfons Chriftian Directory. 
 St. Auftin's Meditations. 
 Epi£tetus's Morals, 8vo. 
 Salmon's Druggilt Shop cpen'd, 8vo. 
 Suetonius, Engliih, 2 Vols. 
 Spinke's Sick Man vifued, 8vo. 
 Steel's (Sir Richard) Plays. 
 Southern's Plays, 2 Vol. 
 Strother's Efl-iy on Health, 8vo. 
 Salmon's Review or the Hiftory of England, 2 Vols, 
 againft Burnet's Hiftory, 2 Vo's. 
 EfTay on Marriage. 
 Shaw's Practice of Phyfick, 2 Vols. Svo. 
 
 Tranflation of Boerhave's Chymiftry. 
 Sutherland's Ship-Building unveil'd, Folio. 
 Sydenham's Practice of Phyfick, Englifh. 
 Shaftsbury's Characteriflicks, 3 Vols. 
 Stanhope's (Dr.) 12 Sermons on feveral Occafions, 8vo. 
 Swinden's Enquiry into the Place of Hell. 
 South's Sermons, 6 Vols. 8vo. 
 Shaw's Edinburgh Difpenfutory. 
 Sharp's Sermons, 4 Vols. . 
 
 T 
 rpAylor's (Bp.) Life of Chrift, now in the Prefs. 
 ■A J Rules for Holy Living and Dying. 
 
 Contemplations on the State of Man. 
 Golden Grove, i2Ves. 
 Tyrrel's Bibliotheca Politics, Folio. 
 Tournfort's Voyage into the Levant, 2 Vols. 4-to. 
 Tatler, j Vols, lives. 
 Tacitus, Englifh, 3 Vols. i2ves. 
 Terentius in Ufum Delphini, 8vo. 
 
 Englilh'd by Echard, I2ves. 
 Travels of an Engli.h Gentleman from London to Rome on ? 
 
 Foot, I2ves. 
 Turretin of Fundamental Principles in Religion, Svo. 
 Turner's Surgery, 2 Vols. fcvo. 
 
 Difeafes of the Skin, iivo. 
 Syphiiis, civo. 
 Temple's Works 2. Vols. Folio. 
 Tillotfon's (Biihop) Works, 3 Vols. Folio. 
 T*]« of a T ub » "Ves, with Cuts. 
 
 1. 
 
 s. 
 
 <?. 
 
 GO 
 
 09 
 
 Oft 
 
 OO 
 
 OJ 
 
 06 
 
 OO 
 
 06 
 
 OO) 
 
 OO 
 
 03 
 
 06 
 
 OO 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 OO 
 
 II 
 
 00 
 
 OO 
 
 06 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 OO 
 
 03 
 
 06 
 
 OO 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 oo» 
 
 OO 
 
 06 
 
 06 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 ot* 
 
 OO 
 
 °J 
 
 oo> 
 
 OO 
 
 Or 
 
 06 
 
 OO 
 
 04 
 
 o£ 
 
 OO 
 
 04 
 
 oS 
 
 OO 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 OO 
 
 07 
 
 06 
 
 OO 
 
 OS 
 
 00 
 
 OO 
 
 oy 
 
 00 
 
 OO 
 
 03 
 
 o» 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 o» 
 
 00 
 
 °J 
 
 o£ 
 
 OO 
 
 10 
 
 o» 
 
 OO 
 
 10 
 
 o» 
 
 OO 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 o» 
 
 OO 
 
 18 
 
 0» 
 
 OO 
 
 IJ 
 
 00 
 
 OO 
 
 05' 
 
 o£ 
 
 OO 
 
 x* 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 °s 
 
 oS 
 
 OO 
 
 OJ 
 
 06 
 
 01 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 OO 
 
 o T 
 
 o» 
 
 OO 
 
 18 
 
 00 
 
 OO 
 
 Of 
 
 OC9 
 
 OO 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 OO 
 
 01 
 
 o» 
 
 CO 
 
 iS 
 
 00 
 
 ot 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 CO 
 
 12 
 
 06 
 
 OO 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 OO 
 
 OS 
 
 06 
 
 OO 
 
 02 
 
 of 
 
 " OO 
 
 01 
 
 c6 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 oc» 
 
 OO 
 
 II 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 05 
 
 c6 
 
 OO 
 
 c i 
 
 06 
 
 01 
 
 12 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 10 
 
 OQ> 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 Vat.ban 
 
C io] 
 
 V 
 
 "\7Auban, of Fortification, 8vo. 
 
 * Vida's Art of Poetry, in English, ures. 
 Vertot's Revolutions of Rome, 2 Vols. 8vq. 
 
 ot Sweden, 8vo. 
 
 of P .-nilgai, 8vo. 
 Vanbrugh's (Sir John) Plays, 2 Vols. 
 
 W 
 Y\7Heatley on the Common Prayer, Folio. 
 ** Whitby, on the New Teftament, 2 Vols. 
 Difquifiriones Modeftx, 8vo. 
 Ward's London Spy, in 6 Vols. 8vo. 
 
 N. B. Molt ot the Pieces may be had fingle. 
 Nuptial Dialogues 2 Vols. i2ves. 
 Webfter's Arithmetick in Epitome, i2Ves. 
 
 Book-keeping, 8vo. 
 Wycherley's Plays, 2 Vols. I2ves. 
 Ward's Young Mathematician's Guide. 
 
 Woodward's Ell ay towards a Ma r ural Hiflory of the Earth, 8vo. 
 "Wifeman's Surgery, 2 Vols. 8vo. ' 
 Week's Preparation to the Sacrament, i2res. 
 Wood's Infticutes of the Common Law, Folio, 
 of the Civil and Imperial Law, 8vo. 
 Wake's (Abp.) Genuine Epiftles. 
 
 Commentary on the Church Catechifm. 
 Warder's Monarchy of Bees, tfvo. 
 
 Well's Sacred Geography of the Old and New Teftament, 
 8vo. 4 Vols. 
 Courfe of the Mathematicks, 5 Vols. Svo. 
 Watts's Aftronomy, 8vo. 
 Logick, 8vo. 
 Sermons, 3 Vol. I2ves. 
 Pfalms, I2ves. 
 Wingate's Arithmetick, 8vo. 
 
 OUNG Clerk's Tutor, i2ves. 
 Young, (Dr.) on the Laft Day, I2ves. 
 
 Poem on Lady Jane Gray,8vo. 
 
 hibr't w Ufmn Scholarum. 
 
 "OAiley's Ovid's Metamorphofis, 2vo. 
 •L) Ovid De Triflibus, i2ves. 
 
 Phredrus, 8vo. 
 Cato, I2ves. 
 
 Kxercifes, Engiifh and Latin, i2ves. 
 
 Exercitia Latfnar Or, Latin for Garretfon's Exercifes, xarcs. 
 Busby's Greek Grammar, 8vo. 
 
 Englifli Introduction to the Latin Tongue. 
 Syntaxis Erafmiana ConltricKor, 8vo, 
 Ditto, Conftrued, 8vo. 
 Beia's Latin Teftament, i2ves and 240. 
 
 Glavis 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 10 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 oy 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 18 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 03 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 07 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 °S 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 ol- 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 io 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 OI 
 
 04 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 oy 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 02 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 . 01 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 18 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 04 
 
 06 
 
 00 
 
 09 
 
 00 
 
 00 
 
 01 
 
 05 
 
 GO 
 
 04 
 
 0* 
 
 OO 
 
 01 
 
 06 
 
 OO 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
 OO 
 
 01 
 
 00 
 
C "3 
 
 Clavis Homerica, 8vo. 
 
 Clark's Introduction to the making or Lati» 
 
 Florus, 8vo. 
 
 Nepos, 8vo. 
 
 Eucropius, ovo. "} A ,, . . T . 
 ■v r /All with Literal 
 
 Erafmus, i^ves. > -. n . * l 
 r j • \ rranilations. 
 
 Cordenus iaves. J 
 
 Caftalio's Latin Hble, in 4. neat Vols. 
 
 Latin Teflament, I2ves. 
 
 Cornelius Nepos, raves. 
 
 Celfar, lives. 
 
 Demofthenes, laves 
 
 Dyche's Vocabulary, 8vo. 
 
 Youth's Guide to the LatinTongue,iives. 
 
 Engli'h Particles Latinized, <$vo. 
 
 Phaidrus, lives. 
 Elefta Major a, 8vo. 
 Minora, bvo. 
 Eutropius, «2ves. 
 Epi-rammatum Delectus, lives. 
 Erafmus, Dublin, lives. 
 Familiar Form, I2ves. 
 Farnaby's Rhetorick, 8vo. Englifh and Latin, 
 Garretfon's Englifh Exercifes, I2ves. 
 Gradus ad Parnaflum, 8vo. 
 Gregory's Nomenclatura, 8vo. 
 Hederici Lexicon, 4ro. 
 Homeri Ilias,Greek and LatinjSvo* 
 Helvici Colloquia, I2ves. 
 Hoaaley's Phaedrus, i2ves. 
 Horace, i2Ves. fine Nods. 
 King's Heathen Gods, lives. 
 Lock's ytfop Interlinear/, Englift and Latin. 
 Leed's Greek Grammar, I2ves. 
 London Vocabulary, by Greenwood, lives. 
 Leufden's Compendium, 8vo. 
 Martialis Epiurammata, i2ves. 
 
 More's Englifh Examples, tor the Ufe of Bury Sckool, 8vc, 
 Pantheon. By Tooke, 8vo. with Cuts. 
 Phaedrus Delphini, 8vo. 
 Ra 's Nomenclatura. 8vo. 
 Royal Grammar, lives. 
 Urmlton's Help to ihe Accidenre, 8vcw 
 London Spelling Book, lives. 
 
 Walker's Art of Teaching, nves. 
 
 Engl. Examples, 1 2ves. 
 
 Particles, 8vo. 
 Wet tenhal i's Gr . Grammar , 1 ives . 
 Well's Dionyfius, 8vo. 
 Ware's Pra&ical Grammar, 8vo. 
 Xenophon de Cyri IntUtutione, Greek and Litin. 
 
 Moji of the Clajficks in Ufum Detyhim. 
 
BOOKS lately pibliftitl 
 
 \. np HE Entertaining Novels of Mrs. Jane Barker. Containing, i. Exilius? 
 ■*■ Or, TheBanihYd Roman. 2. Clelia and Marcellus: Or, The Conftant Lo- 
 vers. 3« The Reward of Virtue: Or, The Adventures of Clarinthia and Lyfan- 
 der. 4. The Lucky Efcape: Or, The Fate of Ifmenus. J. Cbdius and Scipiana • 
 Or, The Beautiful Captive. 6. Pifo : Or, The Leud Courcier. 7. The Happy 
 Reclufe: Or, The Charms of Liberty. 8. The Fair Widow: Or, Falfe Friend. 
 9. The Amours of Bofvill and Galefia. The 2d. Edition. In 2 Vols. Price js. 
 
 II. A Patchwork Screen for the Ladies : Or, Love and Virtue recofnmended, in 
 a Collection of Inftrudtive Novels, related after a Manner entirely New, an4 
 interfpers'd with Rural Poems, defcribing the Innocence of a Country Life. 
 Price is. 6"d. 
 
 III. A Lining for the Patchwork Screen : Defigned for the farther Entertain- 
 ment of the Ladies. Price is. 6d. Thefe Two by Mrs. Barker. 
 
 IV. The Life of Charlotta du Pont, an Englifli Lady, taken from her own 
 Memoirs: Giving an Account how fhe was trapann'd by her Step-Mother to 
 Virginia^ how the Ship was taken by fome Madagafcar Pyrates, and retaken by 
 a Spaniih Man ot War; of her Marriage in the Spanifh Weft-Indies, and Adven- 
 tures while ihe refided there, with her Return to England ; and the Hiftory of 
 feveral Gentlemen and Ladies whom fhe met withal in her Travels, fome of 
 whom had been Slaves in Barbary, and others caft on Shore on the Barbarous 
 Coails up the great River Oroonocjue; with their Efcape thence, and fafe Return 
 to France and Spain. A Hiftory that contains the greateil Variety of Events 
 ever yet publifh'd. By Mrs. Aubin. Price 2 s. 
 
 V. The Tragical Hiftory of the Chevalier de V au dray and the Countefs de 
 Vergi. In Two Parts. To which is annex'd a fliort Novel, entitled, The In- 
 human Husband. Done from che French by Mr. Morgan? Price 2 s. 
 
 VI. The Agreeable Variety : Peing a rnifcellaneous Colle&ion in Profe and 
 Verfe, from the Works si the moil Celebrated Authors. In Two Parts, viz. 
 Part I. Containing Inftru&ive Difcourfes on the moft ufeiul Subjects, tor the 
 happy Condu£t of human Life. 2. Chai'aft.^rs of the moil Illuftrious . erf jnages 
 of both Sexes, of our own, and other Nations, particularly the remarkable 
 Manner of Life of the excellent Princefs or Parma. Written by herfeif, and 
 found among her Papers aher her Deceafe. 3. Choice Poems, and Select Paifages, 
 extracted trom the moft elebrated Poets. Part II. Containing Original Poems; 
 Sixty familiar Letters upon Education, Lwe, Friendihip, &c. none of which 
 ever before Publifh'd. The Whole Collected and Publiih'd by a Lady. Price 
 3 s. 6d. The 2d Edition. 
 
 VII. Mifcellanea Aurea: Or, The Golden Medley. Confiding of, 1. A Voyage 
 to the Mountains of the Moon, under the yEquator : Or, Parnaffus reform'd. 
 2. The Fortunate Ship-wreck: Or, A Defer: prion of New Athens, being an 
 Account of the Laws, Manners, Religion, and Cuftoms of that Country. By 
 Morris Williams, Gent, who refided there above twenty Years. 3. Alberoni.-Or, 
 A Vindication of that Cardinal. 4.. The Secret Hiftory of the Amours of Don 
 A!onzo Duke of Lerma, and Grandee of Spain. 5. Tne Garden of Adonis : Or, 
 Love to no Purpofe j being about twenty Copies of Verfes and Love Letters. By 
 a Lady. 6- Mahomet nolmpoftor; written in Arafeick, by Abdulla-Mahunied 
 Omcr. 7. An Account of Bad and Good Women, antient and modern. With 
 feveral other Epiftchry Effays in Profe and Verfe. By Mr. Milton ; the Lady 
 W-----, Mr. Philips, and feveral Others. In Octavo. Price 4 s. 
 
 VIII. The 
 
[ n] 
 
 VIII. The four Years Voyage of Captain George Roberts; Being a Series o* 
 uncommon Events, which betel him in a Voyage to the Iflands of the Canaries, 
 Cape de Verde, and Barbadoes, from whence he was bound to the Coalf. ot 
 Guinea j the Manner of his being taken by three Pirate Ships, Commanded by 
 Low, Ruffel,, and Spriggs, who after having plundered him, and detained hiin 
 ten Days, put him aboard his own Sloop without Provisions, Water, &c. and with 
 only two Boys, one of eighteen, and the other of eight Years of Age ; the Hardlhips 
 he endured for above twenty Days, til] he arrived at the Illand of St. Nicholas, 
 from whence he was blown off to Sea (before he could get any Suftenance) witbouc 
 his bigg eft Buy and Boat, whom he had fent aftiore ; and after four Days Diffi- 
 culty and Diflrefs, was Ship-wieck'd on the unfrequented Wand of Si. John ; 
 where, after he had remained near two Years, he built a Veffel to bring hini- 
 felfoft. With a particular and curious Defcription and Draught of the Cape de 
 Verd Iflands, their Roads, anc! oiing Places, Nature and Production ot the Soil; 
 the Kindnefs and Hofpitality of the Natives to Strangers, their Religion, Man- 
 ners, Cultoms, and Superftitions, &c. Together with Obfeivaiions on the Mi- 
 nerals, Mineral Waters, Metals, and Salts, and of the Nitre, with which fome 
 ot thofe Iflands abound. Written by himfelf now living at Shad- Thames, 1726. 
 Price 5 s. 
 
 IX. The Travels of an Engliih Gentleman from London to Rome on Foot : 
 Containing a Comical Defcription of what he met with Remarkable in every 
 City, Town, and Religious Houfe, in his whole Journey ; AHo an Account 
 of their ridiculous Pr^ceflicns, and Ceremonies, in their Churches, through 
 their Streets, and in the Woods. Likewife the Debaucb/d Lives, and Amo- 
 rous Intriegues of the Priefts and Nuns : With a pleafant Account of the 
 Opening the Holy Gate of St. Peter's Church. Alfo Reflections upon the Su- 
 perftition and Foppiih Pageantry 'ot the whole Ceremony of the laft Grand 
 Jubilee at Rome. The 4th Edition. Now PuhlihYd for the Diversion and 
 Information of the Proteftants of England. Price is. 6d. 
 
 X. Saduciflimus Triumphatus : Or, A full and plain Evidence concerning 
 Witches and Apparitions. In Two Parts. The Firft treating of their Poffibi- 
 licy • the Second of their real Exiftence. By Jofeph Glanvill, Ctuplain in Ordi- 
 nary to King Charles II. and F. R. S. The 4th Edition, with Additions, With 
 fome Account of Mr. Glanvill's Life and Writings. Price 6s* 1726. 
 
 XI. The Works of the Honourable Sir Philip Sidney, Km. In Trofe and 
 Verfe. Containing, 1. The Countefs of Pembr he's Arcaoia. 2. The Defence 
 of Poefy. 3. Aftrcphel and Stella. 4.. The Remedy of Love. j. The Lady of 
 May: A Mafque. 6. The Life of the Author. The 14.tr] Edition. In Three 
 Vols. 8vo. 172J. Price 13 s. 6 d. 
 
 XII. The New Defcription and Prefent State of the Kingdom of France. 
 Containing, 1. An Hiftorical Account of its Kings, their Anrkjulty, Pier na- 
 tives, &c. With a Defcription of all the Royal Palaces, and of the Paiu<f;f $, 
 Statues, and other Curiofities therein contained. 2. Of the Parliament, an) 
 all Officers, Civil and Military, belonging to his Majelty, and rhe Princes 
 of the Blood. 3. Of the Bifhopticks, other Church Dignities, Monad; 
 
 and Clergy; of tne Univerfities, Faculties therein ftudied, and of the French 
 Academy. 4. The Peerage of 1 ranee j the three Orders of Knighthood j the 
 Nobility and Mar/hals ; and the Coats of Arms of each refpectivc Family truly 
 Emblazoned, j. A Defcription of the City of Paris, and all the Publick 
 Buildings, hureh~es, Libraries, and Collection of Rarities, and whatfoever 
 elfe is remarkable. 6. The Roads irom one Town to another, with the exact 
 Diflances from Place to Place, not only in France, but from thence through 
 Spain, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands, la Two Volumes, taves. 
 The ad Edition, 1726. Price 6 s. 
 
 XIII. Mechanical 
 
[ 14] 
 
 XIII. Mechanical EfTays on the Animal Oeconomy ; wherein not only th* 
 Conduct of Nature in Animal Secretion, but Senfation and human Generation, 
 are dHlinctly confider'd, and Anatomically explained j „ as alio the particular 
 Manner of the Operation of a Medicine is accounted for, and many other 
 Curious and Uncommon Subjects are treated of ; neceffary for all that ftudy 
 Nature, and particularly thofe that make Phyfick or Surgery their Practice. 
 By James Handley, Surgeon, Aifthor of Collociuia Chirurgica, 8vo. Price $ s. 
 
 XIV. England's Intereft; Or, The Gentleman and Farmer's Friend: Shewing' 
 I. How Land may be improv'd from 20s. to 81. and fo to 100 1. per Acre, 
 per Annum, with great Eafe, and for an inconfiderable Charge. 2. The befl 
 and qurckeft Way of raifing a Nurfery. 3. How to make Cyder, Perry, 
 Cherry, Currant, Goofeberry, Mulberry, and Birch Wines, as Strong and 
 Wholfome as French and Spanifh Wines ; and the Cyders and Wines fo made 
 to be fold at 3d. per Quart, tho' as good as Wine now fold for 18 d 4.. Di- . 
 regions for Brewing the fineft Malt Liquors, better and cheaper than hitherto 
 known, y. Inftru&ions for Breeding Hoifes, Husbandry of Bees, and order- 
 ing Fifh and Fifh-Ponds. Laftly, Phyfick for Families - } containing many 
 ufeful Medicines for feveral Diftempers, particularly the Plague. By Sit J. 
 Moore, i2Ves. Price is. 6d. 
 
 XV. Englifh Liberties :,Or, The Free-born Subject's Inheritance. Containing 
 Magna Charta, Charta de Forefta, the Statute de Tallagio non Concedendo, 
 the Habeas Corpus Acl ; with feveral other Statutes, and Comments on each 
 of them: Likewife the Proceedings in Appeals of Murder, of Ship-Money* 
 of Tunnage and Poundage, ot Parliaments, of the Three Effaces and of the 
 Settlement ot the Crown by Parliament. Together with a ihort Hiitory of 
 the SuccefTion, not by any Hereditary Right j alfo a Declaration of the Liber- 
 ty of the Stujec"t, the Petition of Right; with a lhort, but impartial Rela- 
 tion of the Difference between King Charles I. and the Long^ Parliament j 
 of Tryals by Juries, and of the Qualifications of Jurors, their Punifliment 
 for Misbehaviour, and of Challenges to them. L ftly, Of Jutlices of the 
 Peace, Coroners, Conftables, Church- Wardens, Overfeers of the Poor, Sur- 
 veyors of the Highway, &c With many Law- Cafes throughout the Whole. 
 Compiled firft by Henry Care, and now continued with large Addicions. By 
 W. Nelfon, of the Middle-Temple, Efqj The 4.1 h Edition. Price 4 s. 6d. 
 
 XVI. A Crown of Gl ry, the Reward of the Righteous: Being Meditati- 
 ons upon the VicifTnude and Uncertainty of all Sublunary E joyments, viz.. 
 1. Honour, Riches, and Pleafure. 2. The Nature and Caufe of Afflictions. 
 3. The great Benefit of Afflictions. 4.. 01 our Refignation to the Will of God. 
 To which is added, A Manual of Devotions f r Times of Trouble and Af- 
 fliction ; alfo Meditations and Prayers for the Holy Communion, both before, 
 at, and after receiving ; with fome general Rules ;.nd Directions for our 
 Daily Practice. Compos'd for the Ufe of a Noble Family. By the Right Re- 
 verend Dr. Thomas Kenn, late Lord Bi/hop of Bach and Weils. Price as. 6d. 
 
 XVII. The Devout Christian's Hourly Companion : Confifting of Holy Prayers, 
 and Divine Meditations. Done into Englilh from that Spiritual Drexelius. 
 The 3d Edition, in i2ves. Price is. 
 
 XVIIT. The Gentleman Angler : Containing fhort, plain, and eafy In- 
 flections, whereby the mod ignorant Eeginner may in a little Time, be- 
 come a perfect Artift in Angling for Salmon, Salmon-Peal, Trout, Pike, 
 Carp, Perch, Barbell, Tench, Brfcarri, Chub, Greyiing. Mullet?, Flounders, 
 Roach, Dace, Gudgeon, &c With feveral Obfervations on Angling, Angle* 
 Rods, and Artificial Flies ; how to choofe the belt Hair, and Indian Grafs ; 
 ©f the proper Times and Seafons for River and Pond Fiihing. To which is 
 addsd, The Angler's new Song, the Laws of Angling, and the £orm ot a 
 
 Licence 
 
[ «n 
 
 Licence and Deputation tor Angling. Together with an Appendix : Contain- 
 ing the Method of Rock and Sea Fifhing ; an Explanation of Technical 
 Words ufed in the Art of Angling y choice Receipts tor drolling Fi/h j and 
 how to improve Barren Ground, by turning it into Filh-Ponds. By a Gentle- 
 man,who made Angling his Diverfxon upwaids of twenty eight Years, 1726. 
 Price i s. 6 d. 
 
 XIX. A Practical Difcourfe of Religious Affcmblies, under the foliov/ino 
 Heads : i. Of Religion in general. 2. What Religious Worfhip is. 3. Of 
 Publick Worfhip, and the Danger of forfaking Publick Aflemblies. ... The 
 Seafonablenefs of this Difcourfe. $. Concerning Speculative Atheifts. 6. The 
 Inclination of Human Nature to Religious Wor/f.ip. 7. Atheilfs fljouJd QO) 
 wholly forfake Religious Affemblies. d. Nor intermeddle in the Difputes of 
 Religion. 9. Concerning the Practical Atheift. 10. The Danger of Irreligion, 
 both with refpect to this World and the next. 11. Concerning Parrchkl 
 Communion, 12. Concerning the Neglect of the Publick Prayers of the Church. 
 13. Concerning the great Neglect of the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper. By 
 William Sherlock, D. D. late Dean of Sc. Paul's. The 4th Edition, J726. 
 Price 4 s. 
 
 XX. Spiritual Communion Recommended and Enforced from Scripture 
 from the Primitive Fathers and Councils, from Reafon, and from Experience 
 in an Examination and Defence of the Doctrine, Worfhip, Rites, and Ce- 
 remonies of the Church of England. In Two Parts. By a Lay Hand, Svo. 
 J72i"« Price is. 6 d. 
 
 XXI. Arithmetick in the Plaineft and mod Concife Method hitherto ex- 
 tant; with new Improvements tor Difpatch of Bufineis in all the feveral Rules ; 
 as alfo Fractions, Vulgar and Decimal, wrought together after a new Merhod' 
 that renders both eaiy to be underttood in their Nature and Ufe. The 
 Whole per ufed and approved of by the molt Eminent Accom'prants in 'the fe- 
 veral Offices of the Revenues, viz. Cultoms, Excife, &c. as the only Book 
 of its Kind, for Variety of Rules, and Brevity of Work. By Geo. Fiiher, 
 Accompta.nt. The 2d Edition, with large Additions and Improvements, I2ves! 
 1725. Price 2 s. 6 J. 
 
 XXII. A new Method of treating Confumpcions ; wherein all the Decays 
 incident to Human Bodies are mechanically accounted for, with fome Consi- 
 derations, touching the Difference between Confumptions, and thofe Decays 
 that naturally attend Old Age. To which are ade'ed, Ar°umefits in Defence 
 of the roffibiliry of curing Ulcers in the Lungs; as alio Reafons demonftra- 
 ting that the irregular DJcharges of all the Evacuations in Con/umptions 
 aril'e horn the Reuftance of the Heart not decaying in a fimple Proportion to 
 the Refiftance of the other Parrs, tfvo. Price js. 
 
 XXIII. A compleat Treati.'e of the Gravel and Stone, with all their Caufes 
 Symptoms and Cuies accounted for. To which are added, Propofitions de- 
 monurating that the Stone may be fafely dilfo'ived without wy Detriment to 
 the Bouy, "drawn horn Reafon, Experiments, and Anatomical Obfervarigns 
 The 2d Edition, with large Additions. Svo. i rice ^s. Thcfe two by 
 Nicholas RobinfOn, M. D. * 
 
 XXIV. An EiTay towards a Natural Kiftory of the Earth, and Tcrrefhial 
 Bodies, efpecially Minerals; as alfo of the .Sea, Rivers; and Springs ; With 
 an Account of the Univerfal Deluge, and c\ the Effects it had on rhe Earth 
 By John Woodward, M D. Ptoteabr of Phyfick in Grelham Colle-e. The 
 3d Edition. Price 4.S. 
 
 XXV. The 
 
1*6 ] 
 
 XXV. The Demonftration of True Religion, in a Chain of Confequeneei 
 from certain and undeniable Principles - } wherein the NecelTuy and Certainty 
 ©f Natural and Revealed Religion, with the Nature and Reafou o: both 
 are proved and explained ; and In particular the Authority of the Chriftiatt 
 Revelation is effablimed, not only from the Natures and Reafons of Things, 
 but alfo from the Relation it bears to the Scriptures of the Old Teftarnent. 
 In 16 Sermons preached at Bow Church in the Years 1724, and 17^/, for 
 the Lecture founded by the Honourable Robert Boyle, Efq; In two Volumes, 
 8vo. Trice 9 s. 
 
 XXVI- An Effay upon Government: Or, The Natural Notions of Govern- 
 ment, demonftated in a Chain of Confequtvices from the fundamental Princi- 
 ples of Society. By which all the niceit Cafes of Confcience relating to 
 Government, may be, and many of them are here refolved, with refpe£fc to 
 the Authority of Government in general* the End and Manner of making 
 and executing Laws, the Meafures of Submiffion to Princes, and the Law- 
 tulnefs or Unlaw] uluefs of Revolutions \ in a Method altogether new. Price 
 1 s. 6d. The cwo laft by Thomas Burnett, D. D. Prebendary or Sarum, and 
 Re&or of Wefthington in Wiltshire. 
 
 PLAYS, on E/zher Letter, at One Shilling each 
 
 A Bramule, 
 *"■ All for Love, 
 Anatomift, 
 
 Ambitious Stepmother, 
 Artful Husband, 
 Artful Wife, 
 Beaux's Stratagem, 
 Beaux's Duel, 
 Beggar's Bufli, 
 Biter, 
 
 Boarding School, 
 Bold Strike for a Wife. 
 Briton, 
 Bufiris, 
 Bufy Body, 
 Caius Marius, 
 Campaign, 
 Careleis Husband, 
 Caco, 
 Chances, 
 Committee, 
 Conicious Lovers, 
 CountryWife, 
 Sir Courtly Nice, 
 Cruel Gift, 
 Devil of a Wife, 
 DiitrefsM Mother, 
 Don Sebaitian, 
 Double Gallant, 
 
 Drummer, 
 
 Duke or Gioucefter, 
 
 Earl of Eifov, 
 
 ./Efop, 
 
 Fair Penitent, 
 
 Fair Quaker of Deal, 
 
 Fall of Saguntum, 
 
 Fatal Marriage, 
 
 Gamefter, 
 
 Hamlet, 
 
 Hob, 
 
 Humours of Purgatory, 
 
 Jane Shore, 
 
 Jane Gray, 
 
 Inconftant, 
 
 Ignoramus, 
 
 Ifland Princefs, ' 
 
 King Lear, 
 
 London Cuckolds, 
 
 Love and a Bottle, 
 
 Love for Money, 
 
 Love makes a Man, 
 
 Love's lafl Shift, 
 
 Mariamne, 
 
 Meafure for Meafure, 
 
 Merry Wives of Windier, 
 
 Northern Heirefs, 
 
 Northern Lafs, 
 
 Oroonoko. 
 
 Orphan, 
 
 Othello, 
 
 Phardra and Hippolit us, 
 
 Pilgrim, 
 
 Plain Dealer, 
 
 Provok'd Wife, 
 
 Recruiting Officer, 
 
 Rehearfal and Chances, 
 
 Relapfe, 
 
 Revenge, 
 
 Royal Convert, 
 
 Rule a Wile, 
 
 She Gallant, 
 
 Sauney the Scot, 
 
 She wou'd and ihe wou'd'nt, 
 
 She wou'd if fiie cou'd, 
 
 Siege of Damafcus, 
 
 Sophonisba, 
 
 Spartan Dame, 
 
 'Squire of Alfatia, 
 
 Tamerlane, 
 
 Theodofius, 
 
 Tunbridoe Weils, 
 
 Twin-Rivals, 
 
 Venice preferv'd> 
 
 Ulyilcs, 
 
 Sir Walter Raleigh, 
 
 Wife's Excufe, 
 
 Wonder. 
 
 Wtth great Variety of Plays, Poetry, Novels, &c. 
 
ADDITIONS 
 
 AND 
 
 ALTERATIONS 
 
 I N T H E 
 
 Second Edition 
 
 O F T H E 
 
 CREDIBILITY 
 
 OF THE 
 
 Gospel History: 
 
 or, t H E 
 
 FACTS 
 
 Occafionally mention'd in the 
 
 NEW TESTAMENT, 
 
 Confirmed by 
 
 Passages of Ancient Authors, who were con^ 
 
 temporary with our Saviour or his Apottles, or 
 lived near their time. 
 With an Appendix concerning the time of Herod's death. 
 
 k m > > ■ - ' ■ ' ■ iii — ■— 
 
 By NATHANIEL LARDNER. 
 
 — — — %_ : ■ 
 
 LONDON: 
 
 printed for jo n n G r a y at the C r o % s-K E y i sa ths 
 Poultry, 1750. 
 
ADVERTISEMENT 
 
 Concerning the 
 
 SECOND EDITION. 
 
 NOW allow, that the words of St. 
 Luke, ch. ii. 2. are capable of the fenfe, 
 in which they are underflood fey Herwaert 
 and Perizonius. But as I ftill difpute molt 
 of the examples alledged by thofe learned 
 men in fupport of that fenfe, there is but a fmall alte- 
 ration made in that article. The Reverend Mr. Majfion 
 has * given me occafion to confider afrefh what I had 
 faid concerning Macrobius's paffage. I hope, what is 
 now added will be to his and others fatisfaclion. I have 
 alfo taken this opportunity to add fome farther obferva- 
 tions on Jofepbus's filence about the (laughter of the in- 
 fants at Bethlehem. But the moft important addition is 
 a curious obfervation on Jofiephus concerning the Egyp- 
 tian impoftor, which I received from Mr. Ward. Thefe 
 and the few other alterations and additions made in this 
 edition can need no apology with thofe who underftand 
 the nature of this defign. As the Additions are print- 
 ed by themfelves, and may be had feparate, I hope the 
 firft edition is not much prejudiced hereby. 
 
 Note 5 "The Additions are to be given to thofe who are 
 fojfejfed of the firft Edition. 
 
 * See his Slaughter of the children in Bethlehem, as an hiftorical 
 fi&, vindicated, cjfY. in- the dedication to the Biihop of Coventry 
 Had Lichfield, 
 
 BOOK 
 
(3X 
 
 
 BOOK I. 
 
 Note : The figures included within Crotchets are the Pages of the 
 fecond edition ; the other are the pages of the firft edition. 
 
 CHAP. II. 
 
 PAGE [47] 70. 1. 2. — and to intimate, that 
 they ought not to expecl to be refiored to the au- 
 thority they wijhed for, whilfi they were fo uni- 
 Verfally corrupt (a). 
 
 Note added, (a) There is a remarkable paffage to this purpofe iri 
 the fpeech of Jofepbus to the Jews in Jerufalem, while Titus with 
 the Roman army lay before the city. II hitv & h^d^iS* Aah'^; 
 
 ftatriet, xj H w&i «tAAitA*< le<£, niwjrnioy iTnyctyt 7H T^AfW, 
 > 'Papauots utt'itcl^iv q Qioi 7fc\j dvcttyvs ihivfodets. Jofeph. de 
 l.v. c.9. §.4. 
 
 Page [151] 243. At the end of Chap. in. Add: It 
 appears from a verfe of Horace (b), that the Jewifh 
 zeal in making profelytes was very extraordinary, and 
 much taken notice of. 
 
 0) 
 
 Ac veluti te 
 
 Judaei cogemus in hanc conccdere turbam. 
 
 Lib. i. Sat. iv. ver. ult. 
 
 Page [213] 346. At the end of Chap. vii. Addi- 
 tion. §. XVII. St. John fays [Ch. xix. 39, 40.] There 
 came alfo Nicodemus, and brought a mixture of myrrhe 
 
 A 2 and 
 
(4) 
 
 dnd aloes, about an hundred pound weight, Then took 
 they [Jofeph of Arimathea and Nicodemus] the body 
 of Jefus, and wound it in linen clothes, with the fpices, as 
 the manner of the Jews is to bury. This may feem to 
 fome a large quantity of fpices, to be bellowed on a 
 fingle body at its interment. And it has been made 
 an objection by a modern (c) Jew againft the hiftory 
 of the New Teftament. And yet according to St. Mark 
 [Ch. xvi. i.] and St. Luke [Ch. xxiii. 55, 56] Mary 
 Magdalene, and fome other women, having obferved 
 the fepulchre, and where the body was laid, went and 
 bought fweet fpices, that they might anoint him. And on the 
 firft day of the week, early in the morning, they came to the 
 fepulchre, bringing the fpices which they had prepared. 
 
 But the largeneffe of this quantity will not furprizc 
 any, who confider the Jewifh cuftom ; and that they 
 were wont not only to embalm, or anoint the body, but 
 to lay it alfo in a bed of fpices. 'Tis faid of Afa 
 [2 Chron. xvi. 14.] They buried him in the bed which 
 was filled with fweet odors, and divers kinds of fpices pre- 
 pared by the apothecaries art: and they made a very great 
 burning for him. The Jews of this time feem not to 
 have fallen fhort of their anceftors in this kind of ex- 
 penfe. For Jofephus in the account of Herod's funeral 
 procefiion fays : " The foldiery was followed by five 
 " hundred (laves and freed- men bearing fweet fpices (d).*- 
 He mentions the fame number in the War, and in the 
 Antiquities. 5 Tis likely there were fpices here for a burn- 
 ing, as well as for a bed to lay Herod's body in. 
 
 It is likewife objected by the fame Jew, that the 
 quantity of fpices mentioned by St. John was a load 
 
 for 
 
 (e) Jmram, in B. Kidder, affirms, that this was enough ffyr two 
 hundred dead bodies, and that it could not be carried with lefs than 
 1 the ftrength of a mule, and therefore not by Nicodemus. Kidder's 
 Demonfirat. of tbeMeffias, Part III. Ch. iii. §. II. 
 
 (d) Hii-jay'i' •'■■ 3 ut' djj U ">S Qt)LeT£v y A7ri\zvQi$6)V ecpo~ 
 fjictr $'■)£?*• De B. J. 1. i. c. ult. §. 9. T«to/< %iirov)o tzv'Jcuioo'ioi 
 hiKntov St ?vu,:>.-: opb /. Antiq. 1. i 7. c. 8. §. 3. As Bifhop Kidder 
 has not quoted thc^t fcafiages, I hope they will not be unaccep&r 
 
(5) 
 
 for a mule, and therefore could not be carried by Ni- 
 codemus. One would not have expected fuch an ob- 
 jection from a reafonable creature, who might know 
 it to be a very juft, as well as common way of fpeak- 
 ing, to afcribe to any perfon that which is done by his 
 order or direction. St. John has made particular men- 
 tion of Jofeph and Nicodemus, as prelent at the burial 
 of Jefus, They were both of them men of fubftance, 
 and may be fuppofed to have order'd the attendance of 
 fome of their fervants on this occafion. 
 
 Chap. viii. Page [253] 413, and the firft three lines 
 of p. 414. are altered thus : But I apprehend (<?), 
 that St. Paul tells them, he perceived they were in all 
 things very devout. This would give no offenfe at Athens. 
 It was their peculiar character (f) ♦, the encomium, 
 which they were fond of above any other. 
 
 (e) The conclufion of the note, page 41 3. is altered from a para- 
 phrafe to a literal verfion thus. I think therefore that St. Paul fays : 
 I perceive, that ye are in all things very devout. For as I paffed along, 
 end obferved the objects of your worjhip, I found alfo an altar with 
 this infer ipt ion : To the unknown God, Whom therefore ye wor- 
 Jhip without knowing him, him do I declare unto you. ♦ 
 
 {/) Note added : 'E. ya,<> ti cla^o J hfttwaJw <&'<j\iw,, )y r*V hf 
 T?*>T0i{ o£iv kyK&fAtov, to -tjfei tatQ- Tcv.yi;.d?\Q-, ty oj> 73-a.vjl 
 
 amriKeiv. Dionyf. Hal. de Thucydid. Judic. §. 40. Vid. & omnha 
 Sophoc.Oed. Col. v. 1000. & feq. It was cuftomary for eminent 
 ftrangers, who fpokc in public at Athens, to give fhem in their firil 
 difcourfe fome commendation, taken from the wifdom of their lawes 
 and inftitutions, or fome other topic. St. Paul had R;ood reafjn not 
 to be defective in this point upon fo nice an occaiion. He could v'ery 
 truly fay they were a devout people. It was extreme! - to h •> pur- 
 pofc, and they would be much pleafed to hear it from him. ii uiy 
 
 *s, "£*§? rri //w <ts-(Jtz&v t&s aut&j ttwx&cu, Philoft. vit. Alexjtd. 
 Sophift. §.3. Atytivcuots fj.lv y) cTnJWf j/v^/JQ- ojJ t ■■ - Pi«$ Ao^-b*, 
 on *} irfifTov A9jW£s d t f*fl», in \s iyntofjuov kx. . I - \v 
 
 ?J Irzcot, tocxtcov ovrav, cc T/< uVef A^lnvMuv bV»/. Id. vit. Po- 
 lem. §.4. It was therefore a Angularity in Polemen, 1 moil proud 
 man, that in his difcourfe at Athens, at his fir/ vifit, he faid nothing 
 in their praife. There is another like example \ irticularly obferved 
 in -^/r/tf* the fophiit. Msro* 3 *tco ircLy«n<rid.$ i / r i*jvw *r*~ 
 
 A 3 **%&# 
 
(6) 
 
 >4£«<y£, //A t In&vcov ffool&v, ctxxet f la^ry . Id. vit. Adrian. §.2. 
 Grotius underitood St. Paul to fpcak here of the Athenians in the way 
 of commendation, as I do. 
 
 Page [256] 416. How can it he thought then, that 
 thefe governours Jhould undertake to Jupprejs the (g) ftrft 
 Christians, 6cc. 
 
 (g) Note added* When the Romans permitted the Jetvijh fyna- 
 gogues to ufe their own laws, and proper government ; Why, I pray, 
 Ihould there not be the fame toleration allowed to the Apoftolical 
 Churches ? The Roman cenfure had as yet made no difference between 
 the judaizing fynago^ues of the Jews, and the Chriftian fynagogues 
 or churches of the Jews, Nor did it permit them to live after their 
 own laws, and forbid thefe. Dr. Ligbtfoot Hcbr. & Talm. Excrc, 01$ 
 Matth. iv. 230 
 
 Page [262] 426. in the note, after chief Roman officers, add : or 
 %% Philofratus exprefTes it, Judges who had the fword : facet?* y6 
 fetffd-cu tyjTAc [fiKctf iiri //u/%**, &c] 0;io©- 1x0*10: Vit, 
 Sophift. 1. i. n* 25. §.2. 
 
 Chap. x. p. [299] 488. I. 17, after, Jhould he Jet at 
 liberty, add : Lucian fays, that " at the requeft of 
 * c Athenodorus, of Harjus, the ftoic philofopher, and 
 cc preceptor of Auguftus, the city of Tar Jus obtained 
 " freedom from tribute (h) ". 
 
 [h) AQnuofa?®-, r&fMjCy roijtof, of xj ftfeto-jcetxQ- iyivtjo 
 jc. A ? Vol. 2, edit, Amft. p. 473, Lucian. MacroL 
 
 Page [313] 512. at the end of Ch. x. add: Helio- 
 dorus, the fophift, being in a certain (i) iftand, fell 
 under a charge of murder. " Whereupon, fays (k) 
 * c Pbiloftratus, he was fent to Rome, to anfwer for him- 
 6 felf before the Prefects of the Praetorium. ,§ 
 
 (z) About A. D* 223. (k) AaCcov qwtI) vy\q~o> Qtvipw tdm 
 
 fictv, 6t^gT4//e9« i{ r 'P^V""- «f *&toXoynro ( ufyjQ- tg7; -fW r£g» 
 7Qiri<Pwy YiyiiJLOQ-i. Vit. Sophift, I. 2, num. 32. 
 
 BOOK II. 
 
 Ch. i.p. [369] 73. in the notes, inftead of a learned and ingenious. 
 friend ,read, my' learned and ingenious friend, Mr. Ward. 
 
 Page 
 
(7) 
 
 Page [401] 129. the lines 13 — 22 are to be thus 
 read. But methinks this is a defect which may be dif- 
 penfed with, if that be the only difficulty. For my own 
 part, I dare not abfolutely reject it : but yet I am not 
 fully fatisfied, that this is the fenfe of the words. I think 
 my f elf oblige 'd, &c. 
 
 Page [411] 148, after commentaries , and p. 149, 
 150, 151, 152. are altered thus : But though I contelt 
 all thefe inftances (as thinking I have given the true 
 meaning of all thofe places) it muft be allowed, that 
 Perizonius's example from Arifiophanes, and another 
 from Alexander Aphrodifius (/) alleged by others in this 
 caufe, prove that ^£701/, ufed adverbially is put with- 
 out i-^ following it to denote the priority they contend 
 for. How far the argument will hold by way of ana- 
 logy from adverbs to adjectives, I cannot fay. It ought 
 alio to be allowed, that the t?«t6* y.oi <& l£«T* of 2 Sam, 
 xix. 43. (but not found in all the copies of the Seventy) 
 is an equivalent phrafe to that in St. Luke, and to be 
 underitood in the fame fenfe, which is put upon St, 
 Luke's words. The pafTage from the Maccabees, Laft 
 of all after thefons the mother died, contains alfo a paral- 
 lel phrafe. To thefe I add two other inftances (m) of 
 irpuT®- itfelf, which I am unwilling to conteft, and 
 mail leave with the reader. 
 
 Pcrizonius\ way of accounting for this construction 
 by the ellipfis of a prepofition to be underftood, when 
 not expreffed, is well argued from the two inftances he 
 has alleged of ntf fubjoined to ct/wt©-. I add another 
 like inftance from Eufebius (;/). Though perhaps the 
 
 A 4 other 
 
 (I) *H nrXnyvt nquTov $ ctcctirnt r Cplvrnv ^tot«Am, y aua. 
 I£tusprius tonitru perficit quam fulgur, aut fimul. Alexand. Apbrod, 
 Problem. 1. 1, (m) Tlpo nfc 9v\at%VT«oir, x} rfa oKcoi> &? <)•.> 'Q^. 
 
 •9-go* %% t TfcoTtfy id) nv Tf&'7w $*h id 6?"7'k'<.w. Ante eas res quae 
 vere funt, & ante principia univerfalium eft unus deus prior etiam pri- 
 mo deo & rege. Iambi, de myfteriis, §.8. c. 2. Kou t^t©- ere- 
 Cat-Hro rv dWup. primus ante alios corona honoratus eft. Vionyf* 
 fa/, Hift. Rom. 1. iv, c. 3. (n) Avtiko, y*v fcaA* dtttrvpiS*, 
 
(8) 
 
 other way of fuppofing v^m ufed for v&T'i&L (o) 
 need noc be quite rejected. 
 
 I prefume this may be fufRcient to fhew, that the 
 phrafe in St. Luke is capable of the fenie contended for 
 by thefe learned men. Bur I cannot yet peifwade my 
 felf, that it is the real fenfe of the text for the following 
 reafons. 
 
 i. This is a very uncommon ufe of the word *-?#t©-. 
 This, I think, is evident, in that the Critics have been fo 
 much at a lofTefor infhnces. Stevenskntyf ofnorie(/>), be- 
 fide that produced abo*/e from Aphrodifius^ where t^7o¥ 
 is ufed adverbially. There are alfo almofl innumerable 
 other ways of exprefling this priority of time (q). The 
 reafon of the Greek writers fo rarely ufing this word thus 
 is very obvious. It can hardly be done without caufing 
 fome ambiguity *, therefore when they ufe it in this 
 fenfe, we fee they often fubjoin tW. That this ufe of 
 ir^vT®- was designedly avoi Jed, feems to me evident 
 from a paffage (r) of Herodotus ; where having in the 
 former part of the fentence twice ufed the fuperlative, 
 in the latter he takes the comparative ; either to avoid 
 ambiguity, or as more agreeable to the genius of the 
 Greek language. 
 
 2. It does not appear, that any of the firft Chriftians 
 underftood St, Luke in this fenfe. That they did not fo 
 interpret this text, we are affured from the Syriac y VuU 
 gate, and other verfions ; from Juftin Martyr, Eufebius r 
 and from the paffage of Julian above quoted -, in which 
 he certainly reprefents the common opinion of people 
 in his time, of Chriftians and others. 
 
 Page 
 
 "flKATCdv®" JWcTo^aAAo/. Praepar.Ev. 1. 14. c. 2. (c) "Er/ 
 
 Ji rts <Pvva[j.i<;> ovc'ias yi.lv <P-v i^c , lv /J r fpur*. Eft autem 
 quaedam vis c#entia quidem inferior, fed nobilior animo. Sallvft. de 
 mundo. c. 8. (p) ^^- ^ o^ ; -zpo-rz-cv prius. Alexander Aphro- 
 difius, »i irwyri, k. A. Qucm alioqui ufum apud vetuftiores rarifli- 
 mum efie puto : affertur tamen & ex Arifiotclis Rhet. tt?£top «, pro. 
 prius quam. Thefaur. Gr. Tom. 3I 567. A. (7) rif 0, t^Jt^" 
 
 gfv, 'Tpcorov [adverb.] nt pork^cr,, nr^um <r£<?, ^f'f 3 &c, 
 {. -) The fame as in the firft edition, /. 152. 
 
(9) 
 
 Page 1 88. The laft paragraph but one is left out. 
 
 Chap. ii. p. [439] 197. after horrid inhumanity , acid : 
 In a word, the objection againft this relation of St. Mat- 
 thew mud be founded on the filence of the Greek and Ro- 
 man hiftorians, or of Jofephus. As for the filence of the 
 former, the Roman republick or empire about this time 
 was fo vaft, that the affairs of many dependent princes 
 have been loft in the crowd. Tacitus goes over the hi- 
 ftory of the Jews from Pompefs conqueft ofjudea to the 
 government of Felix, mentioned in the Acls, in one more 
 chapter. Of Herod he fays : ' The kingdome he receiv- 
 
 * ed. from Antonie was enlarged [or confirmed] by Au- 
 
 * gujius. And that after his death his kingdome was di- 
 
 * vided between three of his fons (j).' Without fo much 
 as naming the fons of Herod, who arrived at fovereign 
 power, and fucceeded their father. Strabo fays, * Herod 
 « obtained the title of king firft from Antonie, and then 
 
 * from Auguflus. Some of his fons he put to death, as 
 ' guilty of defigns againft himfelf: others he appointed 
 
 * his fucceffors, dividing his kingdome among them. 
 *■ But his fons were not happy, for they fell under fome 
 < accufations. One of them was banifhed into Gaul, and 
 c the other two by means of a great deal offubmhTion with 
 
 * much difficulty kept their feveral tetrarchies (/).' He 
 does not fo much as name thofe fons whom Herod killed, 
 nor thofe that fucceeded him. 'Tis with a like brevity 
 that fome other writers have mention'd//dyW. Dio Caf- 
 fius's hiftory of affairs about the latter part of Herod's reign 
 
 is 
 
 (-0 Regnum ab Antonio Herodi datum, vi&or Auguflus auxit [al. 
 fanxit]. Poll mortem Herodis, nihil expeflato Caefare, Simon qui- 
 dam regium nomcn invaferat. Is a Quinc"lilio Varo obtincnte Syriam 
 punitus. Et gcntem coercitam liberi Herodis tripartito rexere. Tacit, 
 Hift. l.v. c. 9. (t) c Hf<y«r>K — Jrs *) Cx<ntev{ iyj^fxetrio-ij 
 
 J^qAQ- 70 (ii$ irfUTov AptovU t i%xaia.v, uVs?.?*' '3 xj Kaiff&p®- 
 *7» 2«6W«. <ffi vtuv 78\y fj.lv euSrbf dv&Azv, u< Q,7n<fii?<ivaa.yTctf 
 fltttao?. t&j TlKevtfJ' <ria<Pb'X*s dniXiTi, fJ.telJ'eti ojjtcTis ^ro/*V« 
 — ifxiv rot cwivyjHidLVtu Tcuftf, <t\K* ht outiouk; iyivovro. xj • 
 
 fJLlV CV $vyyi tPiZTltetft, Tet&Tolf AAA.cC#£/ YcLKO/TOM KctGuy Qlm 
 J,U<TjV. 01 dt&tarUd, iroWii p'ohlS iVfpPTO KaQofov, TiT&pyjaf 
 
 &ro<MftW iK&riw. Strabo. 1. 16- p. 765. cd. Cafoub, 
 
( »o) 
 
 is wanting. I leave it to any one to judge, whether it be 
 reafonable to expect the particular fact at Bethlehem from 
 hiftorians, who plainly content themfelves with deliver- 
 ing the fucceflion of princes, without relating their af- 
 fairs, or fo much as recording all their names. 
 
 As for Jofephus ; his filenee is no more an objection 
 againft St. Matthew, than the filenee of other writers is 
 againft him. Jofephus has faid a great deal of Herod's li- 
 berality to foreigners, to Antioeh, Berytum, Tyrus, Sidon, 
 Damafcus, and many other cities in Syria ; to the Atheni- 
 ans^ Lacedemonians , Rhodians, and other people of Greece. 
 Of his benefaction to thz Eleans, he fays, c It was a com- 
 
 * mon benefit not to Greece only but to all the world («)': 
 and c that he was fo remarkable for his liberality, that 
 « Auguftus and Agrippa often faid ♦, Herod's kingdome 
 
 * was too fmall for him, and that hedeferved to be king 
 « of all Syria and Egypt (x). 9 I fuppofe people take 
 thefe things upon Jofephus 9 % authority. I cannot con- 
 ceive how the fwgle filenee of Jofephus (and ofjufius of 
 'Tiberias if you pleafe to add him) fhould be an objection 
 againft St. Matthew ; when the filenee of the Greeks and 
 Syrians, people that abounded fo much in writers (feve- 
 ral of which are alfo flill in being) is no objection againft 
 Jofephus: who has recorded many things done by Herod 
 for thofe people, of which they have made no mention 
 that we know of. 
 
 It has been pretended indeed, that Jofephus was a 
 great enemy to Herod, and feems willing to tell all his 
 various acts of cruelty. But this is not certain, for He- 
 rod's character in Jofephus has a mixture of good and 
 bad. He has related a great many things to his advan- 
 tage, which can be verified by no other writers. Herod 
 put to death every member of the Jewifh great Council 
 in Hyrcanus's time, except Hillel and Shammai', yet Jo- 
 fephus 
 
 [u) Antiq. !. 16. c. 5. §. 3, 4. de Bell. 1. 1 . c. 21. $. 1 1, 12. ^ To jj 
 
 riK <T«£<W'. ibid. §. 12. (x) Kou tpctalv ojjt'ov tz KaJffct*a )y 
 
 Ayei7T7retv toWclkk arrttv, cor, ^n^iat to. $ *PX"* Hp«cT« <^aV«£ 
 
 yvifl* T CdJiKetAV lx* v * A nt ^- 1- 16. C- 5. §. 1 1 
 
(» ) 
 
 fephus mentions this very (lightly (<y). He even takes 
 part with Herod againft the Pharifees in an account of 
 an execution made at Jerufalem in the later part of his 
 reign. Though Jo fephus were an enemy to Herod, he 
 might have inducements to fhew him favour upon fome 
 occafions. Agrippa the younger was living, when Jo- 
 fephus wrote ; and he had fome acquaintance with him 
 and obligations to him (z). It was not for the honour 
 of the Jewi/h nation to make a mere monfter of Herod, 
 who had reigned over them between thirty and forty 
 years, A particular recital of all Herod's, cruelties could 
 not but make the uneafinefle oithtjewifh people under 
 the Roman government appear very unreafonable. They 
 might be thought a ftrange people who rebelled againfl 
 the Romans, and yet had bore with a man who had 
 fpared neither young nor old •, who had (laughtered all 
 the members of their great council, and the innocent 
 infants of a whole town and all its diftricl:. I have fbme- 
 times thought, that this was really one rcafon, why Jo- 
 fephus made fo flight mention of the cutting off the 
 members of that fenate. It might alfo be fome induce- 
 ment not to relate the (laughter of the infants. 
 
 But Jofephus, as a firm Jew, had certainly a parti- 
 cular reafon for pafling over this event at Bethlehem: He 
 could not mention it without giving the Chriftian caufe 
 a great advantage. To write, that Herod at the latter 
 end of his reign had put to death all the young children 
 at Bethlehem, on occafion of a report fpread at Jerufa- 
 lem, that the King of the Jews had been newly born there, 
 would have greatly gratified the Chriftians •, fince it was, 
 well known, when he wrote, that about thirty years af- 
 ter the death of Herod, Jefus, being then about thirty 
 years of age, had been (liled the King of the Jews, and 
 had beenpublickly crucified at Jerufalem with that title; 
 and it was firmly believed by all his followers that he 
 was the great perfon fpoke of under that character, and 
 was now advanced to dominion and power. 
 
 Nay, 
 
 ty) Ajit, L xix. c. 9. §. 4. xv. 1, lz) Vi<3- Jof. vit. §. 65. 
 
( 12) 
 
 Nay, I do not fee how any ferious and attentive Hea- 
 then, who had heard any thing of Jefus, could read a 
 relation of this event in Jofephus (a Jewifh hiftorian, 
 known to be no favourer of thofe called Chriftians) but 
 he muft be difpofed to think, the Chriftian belief de- 
 ferved fome confideration. For if there was a report 
 fpread at Jerufalem, the Capital city of Judea, that 
 the King of the Jews had been newly born ; and if this 
 report was fo far credited, that Herod, notwithftanding 
 his numerous iffue, thought it needful to make away 
 with all the young children * at Bethlehem, and its bor- 
 ders, in order to fecure the fuccefiion in his own family: 
 this is at once a ftrong argument, that the Jewijh ex- 
 pectation of a great perfon to a rife from among them 
 is no new thing, and that there were fome reafons to 
 think that great perfon had been born at that time. 
 Moreover, he muft alfo fuppofe it pofiible, that the 
 Child, whofe life was aimed at, efcaped, notwithftand- 
 ing the care of Herod. For it is plain, he did not cer- 
 tainly know the child, of whom the difcourfe was : if 
 he had, he would not have given orders for deftroying 
 all the young children under fuch an age. 
 
 The more any Heathen knew of the Jewijh expecta- 
 tions, or of the ftory oljefus, either from hearfay from 
 the Chriftians, or by having looked into any of the 
 Gofpels, the more would he have remarked fuch a rela- 
 tion in this hiftorian. 
 
 For this reafon Jofephus could by no means be wil- 
 ling to relate this event, with its mod peculiar circum- 
 ftances ; though I think he has given a general account 
 pf Herod's cruelty at that time, as I have fuffkiently 
 (hewn already. 
 
 Page [444] 197. After, A voice was heard in Rama^ 
 add : This event is alfo mentioned in Irenaeus (a) 9 who 
 lived in the fame century •, and by Origen (b) \a the 
 third century, in his anfwer to Celfus, where he fays : 
 f Herod put to death all the little children in Bethlehem 
 « and its borders, with a defign to deftroy the King of 
 
 the 
 
( »3 ) 
 
 € the Jews, who had been born there.' 'Tis needJefs to 
 make any more quotations of Chrijlian (c) writers. 
 
 (a) Propter hoc & pueros eripiebat, qui erant in domo David, bene 
 fortiti in ilia tempore nafci, ut eos praemitteret in fuum regnum ; iple 
 infans cum eflet, infantes hominum martyres parans, propter Chri- 
 ilum, qui in Bethlehem natus eft Judae, in civitate David, interfeclos 
 fecundum fcripturas. Contra Haer. 1. iii. c. 16. §. 4. al. c. 17. In qua 
 [^gypto] & dominus nofter fervatuseft, effugiens earn perfecutionem 
 quae erat ab Herode. ibid. c. 21. §. 3. al. c. 28. (b) o <^' 'Hfw- 
 
 cvv*vcw>'\oav r 'fiuflQivra. Iz<PjIa>v 3*<r/A*ct, I. I. p. 47. [c) Vid. 
 Eufeb.Hift. Ec. Li. c. 2c. P. Orof.l. vii. c. 3, &c. &c. 
 
 Page [445] 198. After Ariftobulus add : This is 
 what I faid of this paflage in the firft edition. I would 
 now add : It ought to be allowed, that Auguftus did 
 pafs this jell upon Herod, upon fome occafion or other, 
 and that Macrobius has given us exactly the words ofthe 
 jeft. This paflage alfo fhews, that Herod's (laughter of 
 the infants in Judea was a thing well known in Macrobi- 
 us*s time, and was not contefted by Heathens. 
 
 If we could be allured, that Macrobius tranferibed 
 this whole paflage, not only the jeft it felf, but the oc- 
 cafion of it likewife, from fome more ancient author, 
 it would be a proof, that this event was well known in 
 that author's time alfo. And we mould have a great 
 deal of reafon to fuppofe, that author was a Heathen; 
 becaufe it is moft likely, that Macrobius, a bigotted 
 Heathen (d) himfelf, did not much deal in Chriftian 
 writers. 
 
 But it is pofiible, that Macrobius found only the jeft 
 in his author, and added the occafion, having collected 
 it from the common difcourfe of the Chriftians of his 
 time, who frequently fpoke of this cruel action of Herod. 
 There is fome reafon to fufpect this, becaufe it is very 
 likely that Augu ft us's reflexion upon Herod was occafion- 
 ed by the death of one of thofe fons whom Jofephus has 
 
 mentioned ; 
 
 (</) This is very evident from his worlo. And the reader may fee 
 a full proof of it in the Rev. Mr. Majors flaughter of the children in 
 B<tkkbem t as an hiitorical faft, vindicated, §.3. 
 
(14) 
 
 mentioned ; and that it has no relation at all to the 
 {laughter of the infants at Bethlehem. This fufpicion 
 may be farther ftrengthened by the great agreement of" 
 Macrobius with St. Matthew in the words he ufes con- 
 cerning the children {e). Macrobius being ignorant of 
 Herod's ftory, and having heard of the (laughter of the 
 infants-, when he met with this jeft in fome author, con- 
 cluded there had been fome young child of Herod put 
 to death together with them. 
 
 lam content therefore to leave it a doubtful point, 
 whether Macrobius tranferibed this whole paffage, or 
 the jeft only, from fome more ancient author. 
 
 "Upon the whole then, there lies no objection againft 
 this relation of St. Maothew. There is nothing impro- 
 bable in the thing it fe If, confidering the jealous, cruel 
 temper of Herod. The filence of Jofephus, or of the 
 ancient Greek and Roman hiftorians, can be no difficul- 
 ty with any reafonable perfon. This fact is confirmed 
 by the exprefs teftimony of very early Chriftian wri- 
 ters, and by Macrobius^ a Heathen author, in the latter 
 end of the fourth century, from whom it appears, that 
 this event was not then contefted, and that it was even 
 better known, than the fate of thofe fons of Herod, 
 whom Jofepbus fays he put to death at man's eftatc. 
 
 (e) Children within two years of age, which Herod King of the Jew* 
 commanded to bejlain. 
 
 Chap. vii. p. [541] 360. 1- 10. after underftood y add: 
 I place another remarkable inftance from Cicero in the 
 margin (/). 
 
 (f) Qh' 1 ^ ea » <l uae NUPER » ^ e ** P auc * s feculis, medicorum ingc- 
 niis reperta lunt ? De Nat. Deor. 1. 2. c. 50. 
 
 Chap. viii. p. [551] 376. after, And that is fufficient, 
 add: Thefe were my thoughts concerning this difficul- 
 ty formerly. But I have now an obfervation to offer 
 to the reader, which I think will not only reconcile 
 St. Luke with Jofepbus, but likewife Jofepbus with him- 
 
 felfs 
 
( '5 ) 
 
 felf ; and that without making any alterations in his 
 numbers. This obfervation has been communicated to 
 me by the truly learned and accurate Mr. John JVard> 
 Rhetorick Profefibr at Grejham Colledge. 
 
 The hiftory of this impoftor feems to lye thus. 
 He came firfl to Jerufalem, went from thence into 
 the country, and taking a circuit by the wildernefs re- 
 turned again to the mount of Olives, In the Antiquities 
 (which contain the fhorter account of this affair) Jofe- 
 phus mentions only the beginning and end of the ftory, 
 that is, the impoftor's coming at firft to Jerufalem, 
 and at laft to the mount of Olives •, and drops the 
 middle part, of which he had given a fufficient ac- 
 count in the books of the War. The chief captain's 
 four thoufand therefore were the men carried out of Je- 
 rufalem, who were afterwards (g) joined by others in 
 the country to the number of thirty thoufand, as related 
 by Jofephus. 'Tis likely alfo, that before he left the 
 city, he had fo concerted matters with fome friends, 
 whom he left behind him, as to entertain hopes, that 
 upon his return his defign would be favoured by great 
 numbers of Jews in Jerufalem, and that he fhould 
 have no opposition from any but the Romans. But up- 
 on his arrival at the mount of Olives, finding the Ro- 
 mans drawn out to attack him, and the citizens in 
 general prepared to oppofe him, he did not dare to 
 venture an engagement, but prefently fled with a 
 body of his moft trufty friends, as is ufual in fuch 
 cafes. With thefe in particular the Roman foldiers 
 were ordered to engage, neglecting the reft, who 
 were only a confufed multitude, and immediately 
 made off as they could by different wayes. When 
 therefore Jofephus fays, the Egyptian fled accompanied by 
 a few (b) only, he is to be underftood of that body 
 which at firfl fled away with the impoflor, and were but 
 a few with refpect to the whole thirty thoufand. When 
 
 he 
 
 (g) The words iZetyetytZv in St. Luke, and «t0£?<£<H in Jo/e* 
 **phus, feem very well adapted to this diftinftion. 
 {h) J by (J.iv 'AtyvTTtov Qvyny \x{^ Myvy* 
 
( i6) 
 
 he fiiys, the greateft (i) part, or moft of thofe who were 
 with him were Jlain or taken prifoners, which in the Anti- 
 quities are faid to be four hundred killed, and two hun- 
 dred taken, he means the greateft part of thofe few that 
 fled with him. Nor need it be thought ftrange, that 
 the number of. the (lain and the prifoners is no greater j 
 fmce, as it feems, Jofephus fpeaks only of that body 
 of men who fled with the impoftor. 'Tis pofiible, 
 fome of the reft of the multitude might be killed like- 
 wife, though Jofephus takes no notice of them ; but 
 'tis moft likely not many. For it feems by Jofephus, 
 as if only the Roman foldiers marched out againft them, 
 while the Jewifh people in Jerufalem flood upon their 
 defence, if any onfet had been made upon them. 
 
 Thus then, though there were but four thoufand of 
 thefe men at firft, they might be joined by others af- 
 terwards to the number of thirty thoufand. So St. Luke 
 is reconciled with Jofephus. And the number, faid by 
 Jofephus to be Jlain or taken prifoners, might be a great 
 number, or the greateft part, of that,body which fled 
 with the Egyptian upon the attack made by Felix and 
 his foldiers. Thus Jofephus is reconciled with himfelf. 
 
 (i) &'tci(pQd,$vcu 3 x) £»y?w0»WK 9rAe»V»* ffvv olutJ. 
 
 Page [$$5~] 380. Inftead Of the laft paragraph 
 read: I hope therefore, that the account, which Jo- 
 fephus has given of this impoftor will be no longer 
 reckon'd an objection againft St. Luke, but a confir- 
 mation of his hiftory. 
 
 FINIS. 
 
 Jujl Publijhed, 
 By the fame Author, 
 
 A Vindication of three of our Bleffed Saviour's Miracles, vitl 
 the Railing of Jairus's daughter, the Widow of Nairn's fon, 
 and Lazarus. In anfwer to the objections of Mr. Woolftori* fifth Dif« 
 eourfe on the Miracles of our Saviour. 
 

. M -H 
 
WV • A Mow. 
 
 
 
 ■Kb 
 
 ■;..■■■ \ 
 
 SPi